Legal Research
Cases
DPP V Newman (a Pseudonym)

DPP V Newman (a Pseudonym)

Case [2015] VSCA 25 20 February 2015

Interlocutory Orders

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2015 0026

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Applicant
v
DAVID NEWMAN[1]	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 February 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 February 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 25
RULING APPEALED FROM:	DPP v [Newman] (Ruling No 3, Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 9 February 2015)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Interlocutory Appeal — Evidence of accused’s good character to be adduced at trial — Good character direction sought by accused — Prosecution and defence good character direction should be given — Refusal of the trial judge to give direction — Prosecution seeks leave to appeal against refusal — Leave to appeal granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T Gyorffy QC and Ms J Piggott	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P Tehan QC and Mr C Farrington	Patrick Dwyer, Barrister and Solicitor

THE COURT:

Introduction

In a trial of sexual offences which has commenced in the County Court, both the prosecution and defence agree that the accused should be entitled to lead evidence of good character, and, once having done so, should reap the benefit of a direction on good character.

Notwithstanding that joint position, the trial judge has — in circumstances that we will later discuss — ruled that she will not give a good character direction favourable to the accused (whom we shall refer to as ‘the respondent’[2]), in the event that he adduces evidence of his good character.
[2]It is convenient to refer to the accused as the respondent, despite there being no real contradictor in the present application.

Remarkably — and, dare we say, quite properly — the Director of Public Prosecutions has sought leave to appeal against the trial judge’s decision, so as to preserve the integrity of the trial; and so as to ensure, as best the prosecution is able to do so, that the trial does not miscarry as a result of the trial judge’s decision.

With great respect to the judge, the decision impugned in this application is wrong. It cannot be permitted to stand. Our reasons for those conclusions follow.

The nature of the application

Before turning to the circumstances of the case, we note that the Director’s application is brought pursuant to s 295 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘CPA’), on the following ground:

1. The learned trial Judge erred in her advance ruling that her Honour will refuse to give the jury a good character direction (with respect to reputation and credibility) in circumstances where:
(a)The Accused has no relevant priors;
(b)General good character evidence is to be led by the Accused;
(c)No rebuttal bad character evidence [is] to be led by the prosecution; and
(d)There is a pending and unresolved trial of…

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 DPP V Newman (a Pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Newman (a Pseudonym) [2015] VSCA 25
Case: [2015] VSCA 25
Decision Date: 20 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) against a defendant identified only as Newman, a pseudonym. The dispute centred around the admissibility of evidence concerning the defendant's good character, which he sought to introduce at trial. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which granted the prosecution leave to appeal against the trial judge's refusal to give a direction regarding the defendant's good character.

The central legal issue in the case was whether the trial judge was obliged to give a direction to the jury concerning the relevance of the defendant's good character. The prosecution argued that the trial judge should have provided a direction that would have allowed the jury to consider the defendant's good character as a factor in their deliberations. The defendant contended that no such direction was required, as the prosecution had not impugned his character. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge's decision was correct and whether the prosecution was entitled to an appeal.

The court held that the trial judge should have given a direction to the jury regarding the relevance of the defendant's good character. The court reasoned that when the defence seeks to introduce evidence of the defendant's good character, the prosecution is entitled to a corresponding direction to the jury. The court emphasised the importance of fairness in criminal trials and the need for both parties to be treated equally. The prosecution's leave to appeal was therefore granted, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings. The court did not provide specific final orders but directed that the trial should proceed with the appropriate directions given to the jury.

Orders