Miles v The Queen

[2013] ACTCA 52

CHRISTOPHER MILES v THE QUEEN
[2013] ACTCA 52 (20 December 2013)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal from interlocutory order of trial judge – whether appeal lies against ruling on evidence – matter not raised by parties.

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – matters to be considered in granting leave to appeal interlocutory decision in criminal proceedings – whether decision attended by sufficient doubt to warrant appellate intervention – whether any substantial injustice would result from refusal of leave – whether grant of leave would inappropriately fragment trial process – whether exceptional circumstances justified grant of leave.

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal interlocutory decision in criminal proceedings – conclusions open to trial judge – decision not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant appellate consideration – no injustice would result from refusal of leave – grant of leave would inappropriately fragment trial process – no exceptional circumstances justifying grant of leave – leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Circumstances in which evidence of events improbable to have happened coincidentally may be admitted – s 98 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – accused charged with three robberies with various similarities – Crown application for evidence of each robbery to be admissible as “coincidence” evidence in relation to the other robberies – defence application for separate trials if Crown application dismissed – whether probative value of coincidence evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect of the evidence – nature of prejudice required to be considered – no unfair prejudicial effect identified – no risk of properly instructed jury reasoning inappropriately having regard to nature of coincidence evidence – evidence admissible on coincidence basis – no need to consider application for separate trials.

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 98, 101
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Dao v The Queen (2011) 81 NSWLR 568
DSJ v R; NS v R (2012) 259 FLR 262; [2012] NSWCCA 9
R v Miles [2013] ACTSC 48
The Queen v AI, AD and JR [2013] ACTCA 16

Odgers (Uniform Evidence Law (10^th ed, Thomson Reuters, 2012))

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 15 – 2013
No. SCC 395B – 2011

Judge:           Penfold J
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:            20 December 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 15 of 2013
  )          No. SCC 395B of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )
COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:CHRISTOPHER MILES

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Penfold J
Date:  22 July 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave to appeal the ruling of the trial judge is refused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 15 of 2013
  )          No. SCC 395B of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL…