Legal Research
Cases
Miller v R

Miller v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 206 3 August 2015

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 206
Hearing dates: 10 September 2014
Decision date: 03 August 2015
Before: Beazley P;
Fullerton J;
Hamill J
Decision:
(1) Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused;

(2) Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – appellant convicted by jury of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 178BA(1) and using a false instrument contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 300(2)

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – where verdict alleged to be “unsafe and/or dangerous” – Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(1) – whether verdict “unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence”

CRIMINAL LAW – whether trial judge erred in failing to discharge jury exposed to prejudicial evidence – whether miscarriage of justice

EVIDENCE – challenges to admissibility – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 55, 137

EVIDENCE – voice identification evidence – where witnesses participated in voice identification parade – where differences in recording of appellant’s voice and recordings of sample voices were attributable to method of recording and production

EVIDENCE – visual identification evidence – where witnesses in better position than jurors to make visual comparison

EVIDENCE – expert handwriting recognition evidence – circumstantial evidence that accused wrote comparator sample documents
SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – whether non-parole period manifestly excessive – whether excessive weight placed upon principle of specific deterrence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alexander v The Queen [1981] HCA 17; 145 CLR 395
Crofts v R [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427
Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250
Khazaal v R [2010] NSWCC 129
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Maric v R (1978) 52 ALJR 631
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
R v Adler [2000] NSWCCA 357; 116 A Crim R 38
R v Blick [2000] NSWCCA 61; 111 A Crim R 326
R v Brownlowe (1987) 7 NSWLR 461
R v John [1975] Crim LR 456
R v Riscuta [2003] NSWCCA 6
R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112
R v Smith (1987) 7 NSWLR 444
R v Smith [2001] HCA 50; 206 CLR 650
R v XY [2013] NSWCCA 12
SKA v The Queen [2001] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Damon Charles Miller (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Tyndall (Appellant)
G Rowling (Respondent
Solicitors:
Carrolls Lawyers (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2008/205683
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Citation:

R v Damon Charles Miller

Date of Decision:

7 March 2013

Before:

Woodburne DCJ

File Number(s):

2008/205683

HEADNOTE

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

The appellant, Damon Charles Miller, was found…

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 Miller v R

Details

AGLC: Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 206
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 206
Decision Date: 03 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Miller v R involved the appellant, Miller, appealing against his conviction and sentence by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Miller was convicted by a jury of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception and using a false instrument. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the verdict was "unsafe and/or dangerous" under section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). This required the court to determine if the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence presented.

The court examined whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury that had been exposed to prejudicial evidence, potentially resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The admissibility of evidence was also scrutinized, particularly in relation to voice identification, visual identification, and expert handwriting recognition evidence. The court considered whether the trial judge made any errors in the handling of this evidence and whether these errors affected the safety of the verdict. The court assessed whether the trial judge correctly applied the principles set out in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) in relation to the admissibility of evidence and whether the evidence was prejudicial or unreliable.

The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in his handling of the evidence, and the verdict was safe and not unreasonable. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not placed excessive weight on the principle of specific deterrence. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed. The final orders were that the conviction and sentence were upheld, and Miller's appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders