Legal Research
Cases
Cornwell v R

Cornwell v R

Case [2010] NSWCCA 59 8 April 2010

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Judicial Review

Misrepresentation

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Cornwell v R [2010] NSWCCA 59

HEARING DATE(S): 20-21 October 2008
30 June 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 April 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Simpson J at 237; Johnson J at 383

DECISION: 1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.
2. Grant leave to appeal against sentence but dismiss that appeal.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - construction by trial judge of evidence as an admission tendered against interests of the accused and version of facts - direction by trial judge related to the conspiracy - trial judge summing up directions - whether verdict of jury is unreasonable - whether trial judge erred in refusing to grant access to the information on oath by a Federal Agent - whether trial judge overstated applicant's role and involvement in the offence - whether applicant has a legitimate sense of grievance for sentence imposed - whether trial of the applicant miscarried due to non-disclosure or late disclosure of material relevant to defence - whether trial judge wrongly refused applicant access to undisclosed material

LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Surveillances Devices Act 2004
Criminal Appeal Act,1912

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Attorney General (NSW) v Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65; 182 A Crim R 536
Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34; [2008] 238 CLR 218
Cornwell v R [2006] NSWCCA 116; (2006) 160 A Crim R 243
Cornwell v R [2007] HCA 12; (2007) 231 CLR 260
DJL re Central Authority (2001) 201 CLR 226
Dominguez v R (1985) 63 ALR 181
Elliott v The Queen; Blessington v the Queen [2007] HCA 51; (2007) 234 CLR 38
Gipp v R [1998] HCA 21; (1998) 194 CLR 106
HML v R [2008] HCA 16; 235 CLR 334
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619
R v Brown (Winston) [1998] AC 367
R v Cornwell [2003] NSWSC 97; (2003) 57 NSWLR 82
R v Duncan (1981) 73 Cr. App. R. 359
R v Haddad [2000] NSWCCA 351; (2000) 116 A Crim R 312
R v IK [2004] SASC 280; (2004) 89 SASR 406
R v Karageorge (1998) 103 A Crim R 157
R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746; [1994] 2 All ER 478
R v Meher [2004] NSWCCA 355
R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 197; (2004) 60 NSWLR 454
R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86
R v Schmahl [1965] VR 745
R v Spiteri [2004] NSWCCA 321
R v Veverka [1978] 1 NSWLR 478
R v Weiss (No 2) [2006] VSCA 161; 164 A Crim R 454
Saleam v R (1989) 16 NSWLR 14
The Queen v Hiller [2007] HCA 13; [2007] CLR 618
Travel Compensation Fund v Blair [2002] NSWSC 1228
Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; (2005) 224 CLR 300
Wills v R (1985) 39 SASR 35; (1985) 16 A Crim R 247

PARTIES: Richard Bruce Cornwell (Appellant)

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 Cornwell v R

Details

AGLC: Cornwell v R [2010] NSWCCA 59
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 59
Decision Date: 8 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cornwell v R was heard in the court of appeal, with the respondent being the Crown and the appellant, Cornwell, being the accused. The appeal related to the appellant's conviction for conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and possession of a false document with intent to defraud. The appellant claimed that the trial judge had erred in their directions to the jury and in their refusal to grant access to certain information. The appellant further argued that the verdict was unreasonable, that the trial judge overstated their role and involvement in the offence, and that the trial miscarried due to non-disclosure or late disclosure of material relevant to the defence.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in their directions to the jury and in their refusal to grant access to certain information. The court was also required to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable, whether the trial judge overstated the appellant's role and involvement in the offence, and whether the trial miscarried due to non-disclosure or late disclosure of material relevant to the defence. The court needed to assess whether the appellant had a legitimate sense of grievance for the sentence imposed.

The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and that there was no error in their refusal to grant access to certain information. The court found that the verdict was not unreasonable and that the trial judge did not overstate the appellant's role and involvement in the offence. The court also found that the trial did not miscarry due to non-disclosure or late disclosure of material relevant to the defence. The court found that the appellant did not have a legitimate sense of grievance for the sentence imposed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.

Orders