Legal Research
Cases
Bryant v R

Bryant v R

Case [2011] NSWCCA 26 2 March 2011

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Contempt of Court

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bryant v R [2011] NSWCCA 26
Hearing dates: 15 November 2010
Decision date: 02 March 2011
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 2; Howie AJ at 3
Decision:
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether error in not ordering separate trials - whether error in admitting evidence of offences not on indictment - whether error in leaving all counts for the jury to determine - whether miscarriage resulting from submissions by prosecutor or errors of fact by trial judge
EVIDENCE - whether evidence in support of some counts and offences not on indictment admissible as tendency or coincidence evidence - whether evidence of confessional statements to custody manager admissible under s 281 of Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - whether in the course of "official questioning" - whether "in connection with the investigation" of an offence
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Rules
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
Cases Cited: Carr v Western Australia [2007] HCA 47; 232 CLR 138
Gardiner v R [2006] NSWCCA 190; 162 A Crim R 233
Kelly v The Queen [2004] HCA 12; 218 CLR 216
Nicholls v The Queen; Coates v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA HCA 1; 219 CLR 196
O'Keefe v R [2009] NSWCCA 121
R v Armstrong [2010] NSWSC 483
R v Bryant [2008] NSWDC 346
R v Horton (1998) 45 NSWLR 426
R v Naa [2009] NSWSC 851; 76 NSWLR 271; 197 A Crim R 192
R v Sharp [2003] NSWSC 1117; 143 A Crim R 344
R v Taouk [2005] NSWCCA 155; 154 A Crim R 69
R v Zhang [2005] NSWCCA 437; 158 A Crim R 504
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nathan Gordon Bryant (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
In person (Appellant)
J Pickering (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Not applicable (Appellant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2007/8758
Decision under appeal

Citation:

R v Bryant [2008] NSWDC 346

Date of Decision:

2008-12-17 00:00:00

Before:

Bennett DCJ

File Number(s):

2007/8758

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL : I agree with Howie AJ.

SIMPSON J : I agree with Howie AJ.

HOWIE AJ : This is an appeal against conviction following a trial by jury in the District Court of an indictment containing eight counts. The appellant was represented by counsel at trial but was unrepresented on the hearing of the appeal. He has conducted the appeal by way of written submissions to which he did not wish to add any oral argument at the hearing in this Court. The submissions on which the appellant relies are set out in a handwritten document of 25 pages. The submissions are clear, rational and precise and the appellant appears to be intelligent. The Crown filed lengthy written submissions in reply and did not wish to add to those submissions at the hearing of the appeal.

Although the applicant apparently…

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 Bryant v R

Details

AGLC: Bryant v R [2011] NSWCCA 26
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 26
Decision Date: 02 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bryant v R involved an appeal against a conviction in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Bryant, was convicted of several offences including armed robbery, kidnapping, and assault with intent to rob. The primary dispute centred on the alleged procedural errors during the trial and the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in not ordering separate trials for the various offences, in admitting evidence of offences not included in the indictment, in leaving the determination of all counts to the jury, and whether any errors led to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the evidence of certain offences and confessions was admissible under the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

The court considered whether the trial judge should have ordered separate trials for the various offences, given the potential for prejudice. It examined whether the admission of evidence relating to offences not on the indictment was permissible under the tendency or coincidence exceptions. The court also scrutinised whether evidence of confessional statements made to a custody manager was admissible under section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The court had to determine if these statements were made in the course of "official questioning" and "in connection with the investigation" of an offence. Furthermore, the court evaluated if the prosecutor's submissions or factual errors by the trial judge contributed to a miscarriage of justice.

After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the court found that there were no significant errors in the trial process that warranted a new trial. The evidence of the offences not on the indictment was deemed admissible as it fell within the tendency or coincidence exceptions. The confessional statements were also found to be admissible under the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The court concluded that the trial judge's decisions did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders