Legal Research
Cases
Adams v R

Adams v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 215 1 September 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Adams v R [2017] NSWCCA 215
Hearing dates: 21 June 2017
Date of orders: 01 September 2017
Decision date: 01 September 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
R A Hulme J at [405]
Wilson J at [406]
Decision:
Leave to appeal in relation to Grounds 1 and 3 refused.
Remaining Grounds of Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – judge alone trial – offence of murder – victim’s body not found – acceptance of tendency evidence fundamental to conviction – whether tendency evidence of Ms Hyde and Ms Brown properly admitted – whether probative value substantially outweighed prejudicial effect – whether his Honour correctly directed himself as to the use to which the tendency evidence could be put – whether his Honour needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the occurrence of the conduct giving rise to the tendency found – whether his Honour erred in taking into account evidence in support of other tendency incidents when considering whether an asserted tendency existed – whether certain documents were properly admitted as “business records” – whether the verdict was unreasonable – whether his Honour failed to exclude reasonable alternative hypotheses inconsistent with guilt – appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 18
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 6
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) – r 4
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) – s 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – ss 55, 69, 70, 97, 101,137,192
Cases Cited: Atai v R [2014] NSWCCA 210
Barca v The Queen [1975] HCA 42; 133 CLR 82
DJS v R [2010] NSWCCA 200
Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4
Elomar v R; Hasan v R; Cheikho v R; Cheikho v R; Jamal v R [2014] NSWCCA 303; 316 ALR 206
Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250
Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47
Greenhalgh v R [2017] NSWCCA 94
Hughes v R [2015] NSWCCA 330
Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20
IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300
JWM v R [2014] NSWCCA 248
R v Adams (No 1) [2015] NSWSC 1960
R v Adams (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1359
R v Adams (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 1563
R v Adams (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 1565
R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112; 66 NSWLR 228
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; 258 CLR 308
Thompson v The Queen [1989] HCA 30; 169 CLR 1
Thornton v R [2017] NSWCCA 86
White v Johnston [2015] NSWCA 18; 87 NSWLR 779
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Robert John Adams – Appellant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
G James QC/P Lange/C Parkin – Appellant
M Cinque SC – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
B Wrench – Appellant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2013/382738
Decision under appeal

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adams v R

Details

AGLC: Adams v R [2017] NSWCCA 215
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 215
Decision Date: 01 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Adams v R, the appellant was convicted of murder in a judge-alone trial. The key issue was the absence of the victim’s body, which made the prosecution’s case heavily reliant on tendency evidence. The appellant challenged the admissibility of this evidence, arguing it was unfairly prejudicial and did not have sufficient probative value. The court had to determine whether the judge correctly applied the legal standards for admitting and using tendency evidence and whether the evidence was appropriately balanced against its prejudicial effects.

The court considered the criteria for admitting tendency evidence, focusing on whether the probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect. It examined whether the judge correctly instructed himself on the permissible uses of the tendency evidence and whether he needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the conduct giving rise to the tendency. Additionally, the court reviewed whether the judge erred by considering evidence supporting other tendency incidents when assessing the existence of the asserted tendency. It also evaluated whether certain documents were properly admitted as business records and if the verdict was unreasonable, potentially overlooking reasonable alternative hypotheses inconsistent with guilt.

Upon thorough review, the court found no basis to interfere with the judge’s decisions. The reasoning and application of the legal principles were deemed sound, and the evidence was found to have been properly assessed. The court concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable and that the judge had correctly excluded any reasonable alternative hypotheses inconsistent with guilt. As such, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction.

Orders