R v Adamson - [2005] NSWCCA 7

CITATION:
R v Adamson [2005] NSWCCA 7

HEARING DATE(S): 31 January 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

31 January 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Spigelman CJ at 1; Dunford J at 10; Hidden J at 11

DECISION:
Application for leave dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal - When appeal lies - From interlocutory judgment or order - Opinion before trial on whether defence available - Not interlocutory judgment - Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 5F. - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS - Classification - Interlocutory judgment or order - Opinion before trial on whether defence available - Not appealable before conviction - Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 5F.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
R v Staffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633

PARTIES:
Regina
Darren William Adamson

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/2322

COUNSEL:
J Girdham for Crown
GD Wendler for Adamson

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh for Crown
Van Houten Solicitors for Adamson

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/11/0386

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Blackmore DCJ

2004/2322

SPIGELMAN CJ
DUNFORD J
HIDDEN J
MONDAY 31 JANUARY 2005

REGINA v DARREN WILLIAM ADAMSON

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to provisions of s 5F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

2 The applicant has been indicted on two charges. First, that he did break and enter a building and did steal certain property, contrary to the provisions of s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. Secondly, that he did maliciously damage property by fire, contrary to s 195(6) of the Crimes Act 1900.

3 In an interlocutory application to the District Court, the applicant raised the topic of intoxication and particularly sought the court to consider whether he was entitled to the benefit of Pt 11A of the Crimes Act, on the basis that each of the offences with which he stood charged was an offence involving specific intent, within the meaning of that Part. If that were the case, then he would be entitled to the benefit of s 428C of the Crimes Act 1900 to the following effect:

“Evidence that a person was intoxicated (whether by reason of self-induced intoxication or otherwise) at the time of the relevant conduct may be taken into account in determining whether the person had the intention to cause the specific result necessary for an offence of specific intent.”

4 Blackmore DCJ heard argument on this matter and rejected the proposition for which the applicant contended before his Honour and for which the applicant continues to contend in this court. His Honour concluded:

“Having considered the submissions of the accused in my view no basis has been shown for him to rely on intoxication as a defence to either of the charges in the indictment.”

5 His Honour made no order. The submission in this court is that his Honour's reasons for decision constituted a judgment within the meaning of s 5F of the Act. Mr G Wendler, who appeared for the applicant, submitted that his Honour's judgment…

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 R v Adamson

Details

AGLC: R v Adamson [2005] NSWCCA 7
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 7
Decision Date: 31 January 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Adamson, the appellant faced charges before the court, contesting the admissibility of a particular defence. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia. The appellant sought to appeal an earlier decision that had ruled a specific defence inadmissible before the trial commenced. This appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, particularly section 5F, which delineates the circumstances under which an appeal can be made from an interlocutory judgment or order.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the decision to deem the defence inadmissible prior to the trial constituted an interlocutory judgment or order that could be appealed under section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The court had to determine if this ruling could be considered an interlocutory judgment that would permit an appeal before a final conviction was rendered. The appellant argued that the decision effectively prevented the presentation of a valid defence, which warranted an immediate appeal to ensure a fair trial. The prosecution contended that such a ruling was not an interlocutory judgment that could be appealed before the completion of the trial.

The court examined the statutory provisions and established jurisprudence to determine the nature of the ruling in question. It concluded that the decision regarding the admissibility of a defence before the commencement of the trial did not constitute an interlocutory judgment or order as defined by section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The court reasoned that an interlocutory judgment typically involves matters that can be determined without a full trial, such as evidentiary issues or procedural matters. In contrast, the ruling in question pertained to the substantive defence itself, which could only be fully evaluated during the trial. Therefore, the court held that the appellant's appeal was premature and that the decision was not an appealable interlocutory judgment under the Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the case proceeded to trial with the defence deemed inadmissible.

Orders