Legal Research
Cases
Hayward v R

Hayward v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 104 4 June 2018

Statutory Interpretation

Appeal

Jurisdiction

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: Hayward v R [2018] NSWCCA 104
Hearing dates: 12 February 2018
Date of orders: 04 June 2018
Decision date: 04 June 2018
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Hoeben CJ at CL at [87]; Price J at [88]; Fullerton J at [89]; Garling J at [94]
Decision:
(1)   Grant the applicant leave to appeal.

(2)   Dismiss the appeal.
(3)   Remit the proceedings to the District Court of New South Wales at Sydney on 15 June 2018.
Catchwords:
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) s 29(1)(d)(iii) – whether reports made to Department of Family and Community Services admissible in criminal proceedings in Supreme Court

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – principle of legality – accused’s right to a fair trial – whether Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) s 29(1)(d) was intended to abrogate the accused’s right to a fair trial
APPEALS – precedent – circumstances in which Court of Criminal Appeal will depart from previous decisions – whether The Application of the Attorney-General dated 4 April 2014 [2014] NSWCCA 251 ought to be followed
Legislation Cited: Child Welfare (Amendment) 1977 (NSW)
Child Welfare Act 1939 (NSW)
Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Miscellaneous Amendments Act 2000 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41
Alister v The Queen (1983) 154 CLR 404; [1984] HCA 85
Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1; [1990] HCA 24
Coco v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 427; [1994] HCA 15
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390; [1955] HCA 27
Director-General, Department of Family and Community Services v FEW [2013] NSWSC 1448
Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union (2004) 221 CLR 309; [2004] HCA 40
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503; [2012] HCA 55
Gett v Tabet (2009) 254 ALR 504; [2009] NSWCA 76
Joye v Beach Petroleum NL (1996) 67 FCR 275
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; [2013] HCA 39
Lee v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 455; [2014] HCA 20
McElwaine v The Owners – Strata Plan 75975 [2017] NSWCA 239
PMT Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301; [1995] HCA 36
Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277; [1908] HCA 63
Project Blue Sky…

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 Hayward v R

Details

AGLC: Hayward v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 104
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 104
Decision Date: 04 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hayward v R involved the appellant, who was appealing a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The appellant was convicted of multiple child abuse offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The appeal was based on the admissibility of certain reports made to the Department of Family and Community Services, which were sought to be admitted under section 29(1)(d)(iii) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW). The appellant argued that the admission of these reports contravened his right to a fair trial under the common law.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) s 29(1)(d) was intended to abrogate the accused's right to a fair trial, and whether such reports could be admitted in criminal proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the principle of legality meant that the statute did not intend to infringe upon the accused's right to a fair trial, and whether the reports were admissible in the circumstances of the present case. Additionally, the court considered whether the Court of Criminal Appeal should depart from its previous decision in The Application of the Attorney-General dated 4 April 2014 [2014] NSWCCA 251.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the principle of legality meant that the statute did not intend to infringe upon the accused's right to a fair trial. The court held that the reports in question were not admissible in criminal proceedings as they contravened the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court considered the circumstances in which the Court of Criminal Appeal would depart from previous decisions and concluded that it was not appropriate to do so in the present case. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed.

The final orders of the court were that the convictions of the appellant were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for retrial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the rights of the accused are not infringed upon in criminal proceedings, and that the principle of legality must be adhered to when interpreting statutes.

Orders