Legal Research
Cases
Ceissman v R

Ceissman v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 74 30 April 2015

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Error in Admission of Evidence

Jury's Verdict

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ceissman v R [2015] NSWCCA 74
Hearing dates: 3 March 2015
Decision date: 30 April 2015
Before: Leeming JA; Simpson J; Schmidt J
Decision:
(1) To the extent necessary, extend time to appeal and to permit reliance on the grounds of appeal identified in the notice of appeal filed 9 October 2013 and the grounds of appeal dated 10 September 2014.
(2) To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal in respect of grounds 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the notice of appeal filed 9 October 2013 and grounds 1, 3 and 4 of the grounds of appeal dated 10 September 2014, and otherwise refuse leave to appeal.
(3) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - armed robbery - series of robberies of bowling clubs in western Sydney by masked men in a six week period - earlier decision of Court of Criminal Appeal admitting evidence of each robbery as coincidence evidence in respect of the other robberies - whether probative value of coincidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 101 - whether error in admitting DNA evidence, as to which no objection was taken at trial - whether error in Crown not asking witness who gave a general description of appellant whether he could be identified - whether jury's verdict unreasonable or unjust - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5F, 6
Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 98, 101, 114
Cases Cited: Aslett v R [2009] NSWCCA 188
BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; 88 ALJR 101
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; 230 CLR 559
R v Ceissman [2010] NSWCCA 50
R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112; 66 NSWLR 228
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adam Stephen Ceissman (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant (In person)
T Smith (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/8452
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Date of Decision:

20 April 2010

Before:

Flannery DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/8452

Judgment

THE COURT: Mr Adam Ceissman seeks leave to appeal, out of time, against his conviction on counts 8-22 of an indictment alleging 22 offences arising out of a series of robberies between 14 July and 28 August 2008 at bowling clubs and smash repairers in western Sydney. Mr Ceissman was tried before a judge and jury over 16 days in March and April 2010. He was represented at trial, by experienced counsel, but was unrepresented on appeal. The jury acquitted him of the offences relating to the first two bowling clubs (which were at Campbelltown and Ashbury), but convicted him of offences relating to the remaining clubs (at Moorefield, Canterbury and Mount Lewis).
For the reasons which follow, Mr Ceissman’s convictions are not attended by any of the…

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 Ceissman v R

Details

AGLC: Ceissman v R [2015] NSWCCA 74
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 74
Decision Date: 30 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ceissman v R involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, Ceissman, for a series of armed robberies at various bowling clubs in western Sydney. The robberies occurred over a six-week period and were carried out by masked men. The trial court admitted evidence of each robbery as coincidence evidence in respect of the others. The appeal raised several legal issues, including the admissibility of the coincidence evidence under section 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the potential error in admitting DNA evidence without objection, and whether there was a failure by the Crown to ask a witness if the appellant could be identified from a general description.

The court examined whether the probative value of the coincidence evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect. It was determined that the evidence was relevant and probative in establishing a common scheme or plan, thus satisfying the criteria under section 101. Regarding the DNA evidence, the court found that no objection was made at trial, and therefore, any error in its admission was not reviewable on appeal. The court also considered whether the Crown's failure to ask the witness if the appellant could be identified from a general description constituted a significant error. Ultimately, the court held that the jury's verdict was open and not unreasonable or unjust.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion and that any errors, if present, did not affect the outcome of the trial. The decision reinforces the principle that coincidence evidence can be admissible when it demonstrates a common scheme or plan, and the probative value of such evidence must be weighed against any prejudicial effect it may have.

Orders