Legal Research
Cases
Miles v R

Miles v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 72 9 May 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miles v R [2014] NSWCCA 72
Hearing dates: 12 April 2013
Decision date: 09 May 2014
Before: Simpson J at [1]
Harrison J at [31]
Button J at [32]
Decision:
An extension of time to appeal should be refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - application for extension of time years after conviction entered - applicable principles - Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6 - consideration of the prospects of success of the grounds of appeal - whether directions of the trial judge in relation to complaint violated the principle in Palmer v The Queen - whether evidence of flight should have been admitted at first instance - whether trial judge erred in his directions regarding evidence of flight - application of considerations analogous to the proviso
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61I
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 6, 10
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 110, 137
Cases Cited: Abdul v R [2013] NSWCCA 247
Alpha v R [2013] NSWCCA 292
Darwiche v R [2011] NSWCCA 62
DJV v R [2008] NSWCCA 272; 200 A Crim R 206
Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63; 178 CLR 193
Etchell v R [2010] NSWCCA 262; 205 A Crim R 138
Kuehne v R; Humphries M v R; Humphries A v R [2012] NSWCCA 270
Mackenzie v The Queen [1996] HCA 35; 190 CLR 348
McCall v R [2010] NSWCCA 174
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
Outram v R [2013] NSWCCA 329
Palmer v The Queen [1998] HCA 2; 193 CLR 1
Qualtieri v R [2006] NSWCCA 95; 171 A Crim R 463
R v Beattie [2000] NSWCCA 201
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v F (1995) 83 A Crim R 502
R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157
R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290; 52 NSWLR 82
R v Unger [1977] NSWLR 990
R v Young [1999] NSWCCA 275
RWB v R; R v RWB [2010] NSWCCA 147; 202 A Crim R 209
Wood v R [2012] NSWCCA 21
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Keith Ian Miles (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
P Segal (Applicant)
T Smith (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2006/8527
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2007-07-05 00:00:00

Before:

Judge Conlon SC

File Number(s):

06/41/0062

Judgment

SIMPSON J: I have read in draft the judgment of Button J. I adopt his Honour's account of the relevant facts and his statement of the relevant principles of law concerning the grant of an extension of time to appeal. I agree that grounds 1, 2 and 5 are without substance.

I wish to record my own approach to grounds 3 and 4.

Ground 3

The direction the subject of this ground of appeal was given in the context of a relatively brief recital of the…

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 Miles v R

Details

AGLC: Miles v R [2014] NSWCCA 72
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 72
Decision Date: 09 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Miles was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term for various offences, including robbery and false imprisonment. He now appeals against his conviction on several grounds, one of which is that the trial judge improperly directed the jury in relation to his complaints about the police investigation. Miles also claims that evidence of flight should have been admitted at first instance, and that the trial judge erred in his directions regarding this evidence. The appeal was heard by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge's directions in relation to Miles' complaint about the police investigation violated the principle established in Palmer v The Queen. The court also had to consider whether evidence of flight should have been admitted at first instance, and whether the trial judge erred in his directions regarding this evidence. The court considered these issues in light of the principles established by the High Court in Lee v The Queen, and the proviso in the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6.

The court held that the trial judge's directions in relation to Miles' complaint about the police investigation did not violate the principle in Palmer v The Queen. The court also held that evidence of flight should not have been admitted at first instance, but that the trial judge's directions regarding this evidence were not erroneous. The court held that the application for leave to appeal was incompetent because it was brought years after the conviction was entered, and because there was no reasonable prospect of success on the grounds of appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders