Medium Neutral Citation: Potier v R [2015] NSWCCA 130
Hearing dates: 10 November 2014
Date of orders: 03 June 2015
Decision date: 03 June 2015
Before: Ward JA at [1];
Simpson J at [597];
Wilson J at [598]
Decision:
1.Leave to appeal is granted.
2.The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – extension of time to appeal – whether leave be granted

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – solicit to murder –- bias – whether actual bias – whether apprehended bias - trial judge’s discretion to admit evidence – tendency and coincidence evidence – evidence of prior conviction of solicit to murder – audio recordings – adequacy of summing up – rulings at trial - conduct of defence at trial – conduct of Crown at trial – duty of disclosure – conduct of defence counsel
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – application to adduce fresh evidence
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 1978 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW)
Police Act 1990 (NSW)
Police Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Act 2003 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Antoun v R [2006] HCA 2; (2006) 224 ALR 51
Barron v A-G (NSW) (1987) 10 NSWLR 215
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)
Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34; (2008) 238 CLR 218
Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55; (2006) 229 CLR 577
Cooley v Western Australia [2005] WASCA 160; (2005) 155 A Crim R 528
Cornwell v R [2010] NSWCCA 59
Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; (1996) 186 CLR 427
Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Burns [2010] NSWCA 265; (2010) 207 A Crim R 362
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Enever v R [1906] HCA 3; (1906) 3 CLR 969
Fibre-Tek (Gold Coast) Pty Ltd v Skye Bennett [2006] NSWSC 1100
Gardiner v R [2006] NSWCCA 190; (2006) 162 A Crim R 233
George v Fletcher (Trustee) [2012] FCAFC 148
Gilbert v The Queen [2000] HCA 15; (2000) 201 CLR 414
Grey v R [2001] HCA 65; (2001) 184 ALR 593; 75 ALJR 1708
Grierson v The King [1938] HCA 45; (1938) 60 CLR 431
Heidt v Chrysler Australia Ltd (1976) 26 FLR 257
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
HSBC Bank Australia Ltd v Murtough [2010] NSWSC 320
International Relief and Development Inc v Ladu [2013] FCA 1216
Jago v District Court of New South Wales [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23; (1989) 41 A Crim R 307
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Lewis v Spencer [2007] NSWSC 1383; (2007) 179…

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 Potier v R

Details

AGLC: Potier v R [2015] NSWCCA 130
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 130
Decision Date: 03 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Potier v R involved the appellant who sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The appeal centred around several grounds, including whether the trial judge was biased, the admission of certain evidence, the adequacy of the summing up by the trial judge, and the conduct of both the defence and the Crown during the trial. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around whether there was actual or apprehended bias on the part of the trial judge, the appropriateness of admitting evidence of prior convictions and audio recordings, and whether the trial judge erred in his discretion to admit certain evidence. Additionally, the court considered the adequacy of the summing up by the trial judge and the conduct of both the defence and the prosecution during the trial.

The court found that there was no actual or apprehended bias in the trial judge. It was held that the judge had correctly exercised his discretion in admitting evidence of prior convictions and audio recordings, and that the summing up was adequate. The court also found that neither party had acted improperly during the trial. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders