Legal Research
Cases
Poniris v R

Poniris v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 100 5 June 2014

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Admissibility of Evidence

Limitation Periods

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Poniris v R [2014] NSWCCA 100
Hearing dates: 24 March 2014
Decision date: 05 June 2014
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Adamson J at [83];
Bellew J at [84]
Decision:
(1) Refuse leave to the appellant to rely on any of his four grounds of appeal.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether defence counsel implicitly relied upon s 137 Evidence Act at trial - whether trial judge obliged to consider application of s 137 in the absence of reliance on that section - whether leave required pursuant to r 4 Criminal Appeal Rules where objection to admission of evidence is taken on one basis at trial and on a different basis on appeal - leave under r 4 refused - whether trial judge failed to advise jury of limitations on use of the evidence and to properly direct jury on motive to lie
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Aytugrul v The Queen [2012] HCA 15; 247 CLR 170
Bin Sulaeman v R [2013] NSWCCA 283
Chand v R [2011] NSWCCA 53
Darwiche v R [2011] NSWCCA 62; 209 A Crim R 424
Dhanhoa v The Queen [2003] HCA 40; 217 CLR 1
Doe v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 203; 187 A Crim R 328
FDP v R [2008] NSWCCA 317; 74 NSWLR 645
Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; 208 CLR 593
Flanagan v R [2013] NSWCCA 320
Gilmour v Environment Protection Authority; Tableland Topdressing Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2002] NSWCCA 399; 55 NSWLR 593
James v R [2014] HCA 6; 88 ALJR 427
Kuehne v R [2011] NSWCCA 101
Papakosmas v R [1999] HCA 37; 196 CLR 297
Penza and Di Maria v R [2013] NSWCCA 21
Pemble v R [1971] HCA 20; 124 CLR 107
Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229; 227 A Crim R 217
R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131
R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112; 66 NSWLR 228
Shepherd v R [2011] NSWCCA 245
Steve v R [2008] NSWCCA 231; 189 A Crim R 68
Vickers v R [2006] NSWCCA 60; 160 A Crim R 195
Ward v R [2013] NSWCCA 46
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher Poniris (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
G Brady (Appellant)
H Wilson SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Nyman Gibson Stewart (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/10676
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2012-06-29 00:00:00

Before:

Woods DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/10676

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: In March 2012 the appellant stood trial in the District Court on ten criminal charges, three of which were brought in the alternative. The seven principal charges comprised one count of shoot with intent…

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 Poniris v R

Details

AGLC: Poniris v R [2014] NSWCCA 100
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 100
Decision Date: 05 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Poniris, was convicted of multiple counts of serious criminal offences and appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal. The appeal centred around the admissibility of certain evidence and the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding that evidence. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge should have considered the application of section 137 of the Evidence Act in relation to the evidence, despite the defence counsel not explicitly relying on that section during the trial. The appellant also contended that the trial judge failed to adequately advise the jury of the limitations on the use of the evidence and to properly direct the jury on the issue of motive to lie.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the trial judge was obliged to consider section 137 of the Evidence Act in the absence of explicit reliance by defence counsel, and whether leave was required under rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules when the objection to the admission of evidence was based on a different ground on appeal compared to the trial. Additionally, the Court needed to determine if the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient in light of the appellant's arguments.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was not obliged to consider section 137 of the Evidence Act when it had not been explicitly relied upon by defence counsel. Furthermore, the Court held that leave was not required under rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules when the objection to the admission of evidence was based on a different ground on appeal. The Court also determined that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate, as they sufficiently covered the limitations on the use of the evidence and the issue of motive to lie. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal.

Orders