Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v The Queen

Edwards v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 57 3 April 2020

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Duty of Care

Admissibility of Evidence

Crown’s Duty of Disclosure

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Edwards v R [2020] NSWCCA 57
Hearing dates: 26 February 2020
Decision date: 03 April 2020
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Johnson J at [77];
Harrison J at [78].
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – whether miscarriage of justice – whether Crown’s duty of disclosure breached – appellant charged with counts of sexual intercourse with person over 10 and under 14 – appellant’s mobile phone seized pursuant to warrant – Crown brief referred to download of information from mobile phone being available – Crown case statement referred to text message sent by accused to complainant – appellant did not seek access to download – Crown disclosed witness shortly before trial – no objection or application for adjournment – Crown identified witness from downloaded information – whether duty of disclosure extended to fact that Crown had identified witness from downloaded information – nature of duty of disclosure considered – whether verdicts otherwise unreasonable – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66C, 112, 578A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 141, 142, 146, 147
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW), s 15A
Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015, rr 87, 88
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), s 7
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kinghorn [2020] NSWCCA 48
Grey v The Queen [2001] HCA 65; 75 ALJR 1708
Mallard v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 125; [2005] HCA 68
Marwan v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWCCA 161
Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9; (2006) 162 A Crim R 301
Obierzynski v R [2019] NSWCCA 103
Potier v R [2015] NSWCCA 130
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Scott Edwards (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Randle (Applicant)
D Patch (Respondent)
Solicitors:
O’Brien Winter Partners (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/00070113
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

22 May 2018

Before:

Bright DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/000070113

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the decision]

The applicant was convicted by a jury in the District Court of New South Wales on six counts of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person aged above 10 and below 14 years of age. The circumstance of aggravation was that the complainant, who was the niece of the applicant’s then wife, was under his authority.

The first four counts related to sexual offending against the complainant which took place in the applicant’s utility vehicle at an early morning “boot camp”, which the applicant was conducting at a council park as a personal trainer. The last two counts related to further sexual offending which took place…

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 Edwards v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Edwards v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 57
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 57
Decision Date: 03 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Edwards v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual intercourse with a person over 10 and under 14. The appellant sought to appeal against the conviction, arguing that there was a miscarriage of justice, and that the Crown's duty of disclosure had been breached. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Crown had breached its duty of disclosure by not informing the appellant that a witness had been identified from information downloaded from the appellant's mobile phone. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the Crown's duty of disclosure, as well as whether the verdicts were otherwise unreasonable in light of the alleged breach. The court also needed to determine whether the failure to disclose the fact that a witness had been identified from the downloaded information was a breach of the Crown's duty of disclosure.

The court found that the Crown's duty of disclosure did not extend to the fact that a witness had been identified from information downloaded from the appellant's mobile phone. The court held that the duty of disclosure was concerned with the admissibility of evidence, not the identification of witnesses. The court also found that the verdicts were not unreasonable, as there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The court held that the Crown's duty of disclosure did not extend to the identification of witnesses from downloaded information, and that the verdicts were otherwise reasonable. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders