CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – appellant threw methylated spirits onto bed where victim lay and ignited bedclothes – victim retracted earlier statement to police – whether trial judge erred in admitting into evidence complainant’s statement to police – whether use of victim’s statement to police resulted in miscarriage of justice – whether use of evidence disclosing consciousness of guilt resulted in miscarriage of justice – whether Zoneff direction was required – whether verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to evidence – appeal dismissed
EVIDENCE – admissibility – cross examination under s43 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – objection taken – whether document on which the witness is being cross examined under s43 need be shown to be admissible for cross examination to occur
EVIDENCE – admissibility – police report of motor vehicle accident – whether admissible as a business record – whether charges of negligent driving and failing to provide particulars are criminal proceedings – whether report admissible as prior inconsistent statement
EVIDENCE – voir dire – illegal or improperly obtained evidence – where witness sought to be cross-examined on material that was derived from information obtained by an allegedly unlawful act – whether this derived evidence was admissible – where respondent not involved in impropriety – where taxation officers able refer to broad information base when making assessments or where assessments deemed lawful in Full Court proceeding – application of Pearce v Button discretion to admit evidence – cross-examination allowed to continue
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 26, 43, 138
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – in general and right of appeal – appeal from Magistrates Court – nature of appeal.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – in general and right of appeal – appeal from Magistrates Court – magistrate using affidavit not read – error in doing so – appeal upheld.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 43, 128, 103
Criminal Law – Evidence – Credibility – Prior inconsistent statements – Generally – Application by Crown to cross-examine own witness – Factors relevant to exercise of discretion whether to permit cross-examination – One purpose of application to satisfy requirements to enable Crown to tender prior inconsistent statement as evidence of truth of contents.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss38, 43, 192.
R v Adam (2001) 207 CLR 96, applied.
Tasmania v Mayne  TASSC 82; Tasmania v S  TASSC 84; Houston and Stanhope v R (1982) 8 A Crim R 392, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law 
appeal against conviction
joint and several offences
validity of indictment for unlawful imprisonment
common law offence
inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence
whether open to the jury to accept complainant’s evidence
whether necessary to be against the will of the complainant
meaning of constraining and restraining
directions on element of intent
relevance of complainant’s state of mind
whether direction on drawing of inferences necessary
whether directions correctly addressed actions of an individual not part of the joint criminal enterprise
whether evidence available on each separate count was adequately distinguished from evidence not available
whether document, which the complainant had not adopted, ought to have been admitted
re-examination of the complainant
Crown appeal against sentence
whether mitigating factors were ‘double-counted’
parental difficulties as mitigating factors
complainant’s age and condition as aggravating factors
impact of periodic detention
discretion not to intervene
breaking entering and committing the serious indictable offence of robbery in circumstances of special aggravation
sexual intercourse without consent in company with deprivation of liberty
inciting complainant of sixteen years of age to commit an act of indecency
evidence of accomplice
whether direction to jury adequate
whether trial judge obliged to direct jury that evidence uncorroborated
in opening to jury Crown Prosecutor mistakenly misstated the effect of witness’ evidence
whether trial judge ought to have discharged jury
whether miscarriage of justice
whether evidence identifying appellant wrongly admitted
obligation of counsel objecting to admission of evidence to identify legal basis of objection and evidence relevant to that basis
whether prior inconsistent statements of Crown witness wrongly admitted
irrelevant evidence wrongly admitted
whether proviso should apply
remarks of Crown Prosecutor
whether miscarriage of justice
whether verdicts unreasonable and inconsistent with evidence
whether sentencing judge erred in treating elements of offences as aggravating criminality
whether judge erred in finding circumstances aggravating criminality
whether sentences increased beyond what was proportionate to criminality to extend period of protection of society from offender’s recidivism
whether sentences manifestly excessive
Criminal Law – Evidence – Procedure – Reopening of Crown case after close of case for defence.
High Court – Criminal appeal – Special leave – Judiciary Act 1903-1950 (No. 6 of 1903 – No. 80 of 1950), s. 35 (1) (b).
Criminal law – Evidence – Admissibility – Prior inconsistent statement of accused – Whether prosecution can adduce evidence of prior inconsistent statement in cross-examination of accused – Whether sound recording of applicant’s interview wrongly admitted into evidence.
Criminal law – Evidence – Complaints – Failure to object to cross-examination – Whether trial judge required to rule where failure to object.
Criminal law – Procedure – Prosecution case closed – Whether tender of prior inconsistent statement of accused evidence in rebuttal – Prosecution not permitted to split its case.
Evidence – Criminal trial – Prior inconsistent statement of accused – Whether sound recording wrongly admitted into evidence in rebuttal of prosecution case – Whether tender of sound recording impermissible attempt to split prosecution case – Complaints – Failure to object to cross-examination – Whether trial judge required to rule despite failure to object.
Evidence Act 1977 (Q), ss 18, 101, 130.
Criminal Law – Procedure – Reopening of Crown case after closing of defence – Rule against splitting of case by prosecution.
Evidence – Cross-examination by prosecution to elicit evidence that could have been tendered in chief – When permissible – Proof of document in cross-examination – Tender of document.
Criminal Law – Case for accused closed – Evidence in rebuttal by Crown – Discretion of trial judge to allow – Prior inconsistent statement by witness – Proof thereof if not distinctly admitted – Accused a witness – Criminal Code (Tas), s. 371 (i) * – Evidence Act 1910 (Tas.), s. 98*.
Criminal law – Evidence – Character evidence – Evidence of accused’s good character adduced – Relevance of character evidence to propensity to commit offence charged – Relevance of character evidence to accused’s credibility – Directions to jury – Whether directions about use of character evidence mandatory.
Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Prejudicial evidence – Particular cases – Other matters – Unfavourable witnesses – Prior inconsistent statements tendered – Statements evidence of facts asserted – Witnesses claiming no memory of events or making statements – Effective inability to cross-examine as to asserted facts — Probative value of evidence outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – Evidence excluded.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss43, 60, 137.
R v Suteski  NSWCCA 509; (2002) 56 NSWLR 182; Galvin v R (2006) 126 A Crim R 449, applied.
R v Adam (2001) 207 CLR 96, considered
Aust Dig Criminal Law 
 FCA 168 TRADE PRACTICES – Consumer protection – misleading or deceptive conduct – negligence – fraud – sale of fruit business – representations – reliance – damages.
EVIDENCE – Non-calling of a witness by a party – whether an inference can be drawn from a failure to call a witness – prior inconsistent statement – whether necessary to prove a prior inconsistent statement when inconsistency not admitted.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 43, 45, 60 and 106
PROCEDURE – Adjournments – Unrepresented litigant involved in other proceedings – Request for adjournment in late communication to other party – No communication to or appearance in court – Adjournment refused.
EVIDENCE – Hearsay – Previous written statement by witness called by party – Leave to cross-examine sought and refused – Whether an error vitiating decision.
Evidence Act 1995 ss.38, 43, 45, 60, 106, 192
CRIMINAL LAW – Co-incidence evidence – adequacy of directions to jury; Recognition evidence – admissibility of out of court recognition from photos – Crown witnesses’ evidence unfavourable
EVIDENCE ACT 1995 – prior inconsistent statement – application of s43 – effect of ss60 and 64
TRUSTS – whether resulting trust – principle in Calverley v Green  HCA 81; (1984) 155 CLR 242 inapplicable
EVIDENCE – parties admittedly engaged in dishonest activity – whether evidence could be relied on
COSTS – trustee in bankruptcy – whether costs should follow event where bankrupt engages in dishonest activity – whether fraudulent – trial Judge’s discretion
TRADE PRACTICES – restrictive trade practices – accessorial liability for contravention of s 45E(3) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – existence of an “arrangement or understanding” – lack of necessary “meeting of the minds”
EVIDENCE – admissibility under s 45 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) of document witness taken to in cross-examination – admissibility of witness statement where witness not called – admissibility of answers to s 155 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) notices
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 43, 45, 81, 83, 87(1), 122, 140(2)
Criminal Law – murder – appeal against conviction – admissibility of evidence – evidence of relationship – whether evidence constituted propensity evidence that should have been excluded – meaning and scope of “propensity evidence” – whether evidence of oral representation by the deceased that the accused administered a drug to her some days before her murder is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule – whether deceased’s oral statements made shortly after the asserted fact – whether deceased’s representation made in circumstances that make it unlikely that the representation is a fabrication – whether deceased’s representation made in circumstances that make it highly probable that the representation is reliable – whether similar representation recorded by the deceased in her diary is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule – whether directions to the jury on the use of relationship evidence adequate.
Criminal Law – murder – appeal against conviction – accomplices – warning – need for under ss 164 and 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether adequate warning given in the circumstances of the case – whether items of evidence identified by the trial judge were capable of corroborating the evidence of the accomplices – whether incorrect identification led to miscarriage of justice.
Criminal Law – murder – appeal against conviction – whether sufficient direction on
co-conspirator rule – whether trial judge’s intervention during cross-examination of
co-accused caused trial to miscarry – whether evidence of an out of court statement by a
co-accused wrongly rejected – whether proper directions given on evidence of good character – whether question arose as to an accused’s fitness to stand trial – whether trial judge failed to properly direct on accused’s failure to recall certain events – whether trial judge failed to adequately put the defence case of one accused to the jury.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 43, 44, 59, 60, 65, 66, 72, 97, 98, 101, 110, 136, 137,164, 165
EVIDENCE – cross-examination on documents not tendered – third party documents and prior representations of the witness – transcripts of examinations including transcripts that could not be tendered in penalty proceedings – discretionary considerations
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 9, 26, 43, 44, 192