Legal Research
Cases
Miller v R (No 2)

Miller v R (No 2)

Case [2016] NSWCCA 158 10 August 2016

Appeal

Criminal Law

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 (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 158
Hearing dates: 3 June 2016
Decision date: 10 August 2016
Before: Beazley P;
Fullerton J;
Hamill J
Decision:
Notice of motion dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – application under r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules – scope of r 50C – alleged errors of fact and law – re-agitation not permitted
CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) not applicable
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Achurch v The Queen [2014] HCA 10; 253 CLR 141
Alkawi v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 72
Alramadan v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2) [2008] NSWCCA 69
Application of Malcolm Potier [2015] NSWCCA 199
Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) [1993] HCA 6; 176 CLR 300
Baghdadi v R (No 2) [2012] NSWCCA 77
Buadromo v R (No 2) [2011] NSWCCA 55
Bulejcik v The Queen [1995] HCA 54; 185 CLR 375
Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34; 238 CLR 218
Clark v R [2015] NSWCCA 265
D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; 223 CLR 1
Domican v The Queen [1992] HCA 13; 173 CLR 555
Gall v R (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 152
Grierson v The King [1938] HCA 45; 60 CLR 431
Humphries v R; Ponfield v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 91
IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; 201 CLR 488
Korgbara v R [2007] NSWCCA 84
Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 205
Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 206
Morgan v R [2011] NSWCCA 257
PFC v R (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 241
R v AB (No 2) [2011] NSWCCA 256
R v Green and Quinn [2011] NSWCCA 71
R v Ly (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 91
R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112
R v Tang [2006] NSWCCA 167; 65 NSWLR 681
SKA v the Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Smith v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; 206 CLR 650
Vakauta v Kelly [1989] HCA 44; 167 CLR 568
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Damon Charles Miller (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Applicant in person
P Ingram SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Carrolls Lawyers (Applicant)
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 applicant was convicted of one count of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage contrary to s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and twenty counts of using a false instrument contrary to s 300(2) of the Crimes Act. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction, having sought to challenge…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Miller v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 158
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 158
Decision Date: 10 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Miller v R (No 2), the appellant, Miller, sought to appeal his conviction on the grounds that there were errors of fact and law in the original trial. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the Court was whether an appeal under rule 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules was appropriate when the appellant sought to re-agitate issues that had already been determined in the original trial. This involved a consideration of the scope of rule 50C and the extent to which it permitted re-examination of factual and legal findings.

The Court found that rule 50C was not designed to allow for the re-agitation of issues that had already been decided in the original trial. The Court held that such a rule was intended to provide a mechanism for correcting substantial injustice arising from errors of fact or law, but it did not permit the re-examination of matters that had been fully considered and decided. Furthermore, the Court found that rule 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) did not apply to this context, as it related to the procedures for appeals in civil matters and was not relevant to criminal appeals.

As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not demonstrated any substantial miscarriage of justice warranting intervention under rule 50C. The Court's decision reinforced the principle that appeals under rule 50C should not be used as a means to re-litigate issues that have already been determined. The Court's reasoning emphasised the importance of finality in criminal proceedings and the limited scope of appellate review.

Orders