R v ARD

Case [2000] NSWCCA 443 30 October 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v A R D [2000] NSWCCA 443

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60192/99

HEARING DATE(S): 13 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 October 2000

PARTIES :

The Crown
A R D (Appl)

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Newman J at 71; Adams J at 168

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/3167

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Moore DCJ

COUNSEL : C K Maxwell QC (Crown)
J I Doris (Appl)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Neil J O'Connor & Associates (Appl)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - verdict - whether unsafe or unsatisfactory - role of appellate court - conduct of legal practitioner - incompetence of counsel - relevant principles - sexual offence - requirement of acts constituting offence of a sexual nature on a number of occasions - attempting to pervert the course of justice - duplicity

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(1)
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
R v RAT [2000] NSWCCA 77
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Lucas v The Queen (1969-70) 120 CLR 171
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
R v Robinson [2000] NSWCCA 59
R v Crisologo (1997) 99 A Crim R 178
R v Steenson [2000] NSWCCA 143
Fleming v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 250
R v Giam [1999] NSWCCA 53
R v Andrews [1973] 1 QB 422
R v Leivers and Ballinger (1998) 101 A Crim R 175
R v Hamzy (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
R v Te [1998] 3 VR 566
R v Rowell [1978] 1 WLR 132
R v Morex Meat Australia Pty Ltd (1995) 78 A Crim R 269
R v Waterreus [1998] QCA 90, 12 May 1998
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v M (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Flower [1966] 1 QB 146
KBT v The Queen [1996-97] 191 CLR 417
R v Merriman [1973] AC 584
R v Velardi 24 May 1996, NSWCCA, unreported
Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77
R v F (1996) 90 A Crim R
R v Moussad [1999] NSWCCA 337
Gallalgher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392
R v Craig (1933) 49 CLR 429
Regina v Antal, unreported, NSWCCA 12 February 1991
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 80 A Crim R 308
Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656
Stanton v Abernathy (No 2) (1991) 53 A Crim R 241

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60192/99

SPIGELMAN CJ
NEWMAN J
ADAMS J

MONDAY, 30 OCTOBER 2000

REGINA v A R D

JUDGMENT

1    SPIGELMAN CJ: The background facts, the grounds of appeal and the submissions made to this Court appear in the judgment of Newman J which I have read in draft.

Ground 1

2    For the reasons given by Newman J, Ground 1 should be dismissed.

Ground 2a

3    This ground is based on the failure of the trial judge to give the direction to which Dunford J referred in R…

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 ARD

Details

AGLC: R v ARD [2000] NSWCCA 443
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 443
Decision Date: 30 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v ARD was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, ARD, had been found guilty of multiple sexual offences against a minor and of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The conviction related to acts that were alleged to have occurred over several years, involving sexual conduct with the victim on multiple occasions. The appeal was centred on the argument that the jury's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, primarily due to the alleged incompetence of counsel during the trial.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the jury's verdict was indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory and, if so, the appropriate role of the appellate court in reviewing such matters. Additionally, the court considered the impact of the conduct of legal practitioners on the fairness of the trial and whether the appellant's right to a fair trial had been compromised by the alleged incompetence of counsel. The court also needed to determine whether the evidence sufficiently supported the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice and whether there was any duplicity in the indictment.

In its judgment, the court emphasised that an appellate court should only intervene in a verdict if it is convinced that the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory, a threshold that is high and rarely met. The court noted that the alleged incompetence of counsel was a matter of serious concern, but it was not sufficient on its own to warrant overturning a verdict. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the appellant had committed the sexual offences, and the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice was also adequately supported. The court concluded that the verdict was safe and satisfactory and dismissed the appeal.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The conviction and sentence remained in place, and the appellant's challenge to the jury's verdict was rejected.

Orders