Bathurst CJ at [1] Allsop P at [11] Whealy JA at [12] McClellan CJ at CL at [135] McCallum J at [136]
Decision:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Order made by Hall J on 23 August 2011 dismissing the applications that the charges in the indictment, other than charges 6-9, be tried separately, be set aside.
3. The motions are referred back to the trial Judge for reconsideration in the light of this Court's rulings.
Catchwords:
EVIDENCE - admissibility - coincidence evidence - s 98 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) - significant probative value - whether regard must be had to alternative inferences inconsistent with guilt - whether R v Zhang was correctly decided - distinction between judge and jury functions in a criminal trial.
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - pre-trial order - insider trading - s 1043A(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
CCA 2010/34654 (DSJ v R) Appellant - DSJ Respondent - Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
CCA 2010/40493 (NS v R) Appellant - NS Respondent - Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
CCA 2010/34654 (DSJ v R) Appellant - Mr RG McHugh SC Respondent - Mr…
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 DSJ v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
DSJ v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 9
Case
[2012] NSWCCA 9
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of DSJ v The Queen involved an appeal against a pre-trial order made under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The appellant, DSJ, was charged with insider trading contrary to section 1043A(1) of the Act. The nature of the dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically whether the trial judge should have considered alternative inferences inconsistent with the guilt of the appellant. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issues in the case were whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury to consider alternative inferences inconsistent with the appellant's guilt, and whether the decision in R v Zhang was correctly decided. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have instructed the jury to consider alternative inferences, while the respondent contended that the trial judge was not obliged to do so. Furthermore, the court had to determine the distinction between the functions of the judge and the jury in a criminal trial, particularly regarding the admissibility of coincidence evidence under section 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
The High Court held that the trial judge was not required to direct the jury to consider alternative inferences inconsistent with the appellant's guilt. The court emphasised the distinction between the judge's role in determining the admissibility of evidence and the jury's role in assessing the weight of the evidence and drawing inferences. The court found that the trial judge correctly exercised her discretion in admitting the coincidence evidence, as it had significant probative value. The court also clarified that the decision in R v Zhang was correctly decided and that the trial judge was not obligated to instruct the jury to consider alternative inferences if the evidence was of such a nature that it did not warrant it.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the pre-trial order made by the trial judge was upheld. The coincidence evidence was deemed admissible, and the appellant's argument that the trial judge should have instructed the jury to consider alternative inferences was rejected. The distinction between the judge's and jury's roles in a criminal trial was reaffirmed, and the decision in R v Zhang was upheld.