Ward P at [1]; Hulme J at [481]; Bellew J at [483]
Decision:
1. Extend the time for the filing of the notice of appeal to 8 November 2021.
2. Leave to appeal be granted.
3. Appeal allowed.
4. Quash the convictions on each of counts 1-3, 20-24 and 51-53; and substitute on those counts verdicts of acquittal.
5. Quash the convictions on the remaining counts and remit the matter to the District Court for retrial; and list the matter before the District Court on 23 September 2022.
Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Incompetence of counsel – Miscarriage of justice – Unreasonable verdict – Whether evidence established that the offences occurred within the date range alleged by the Crown – Whether jury must have entertained a doubt where evidence was elicited only after witness was shown his prior statement following a grant of leave under s 38 – Whether evidence on particular grounds was incapable of being reconciled – Whether evidence was insufficiently particular
[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 Madden v The The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Madden v The The King [2022] NSWCCA 196
Case
[2022] NSWCCA 196
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Madden, was convicted of various offences and appealed against his conviction. The appeal raised issues concerning the competence of his legal representation, the fairness of the trial, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable, and whether the appellant's incompetence of counsel led to a miscarriage of justice. The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence that was only presented after the witness had been shown his prior statement, the reconciliation of conflicting evidence, and the particularity of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
The Court examined the trial judge's decision to allow the witness to review his prior statement before giving evidence. The Court found that the evidence elicited under these circumstances was not inadmissible per se, but the manner in which it was presented could have influenced the jury's decision. The Court further assessed whether the jury must have entertained a doubt where the evidence was elicited under these conditions. The Court found that while the jury might have had some doubt, this did not necessarily render the verdict unreasonable. The Court also considered whether the evidence presented was sufficiently particular to support the convictions, ultimately determining that the evidence, while not perfect, was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts.
In its judgment, the Court concluded that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence, and the jury's verdict, though arguably tenuous, was not unreasonable. The Court found no miscarriage of justice and rejected the argument that the appellant's legal representation was incompetent to a degree that affected the outcome of the trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.