R v Baird - [2002] NSWCCA 460

CITATION: R v Baird [2002] NSWCCA 460

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60782/01

HEARING DATE(S): 30 October 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 October 2002

PARTIES :

Paul Raymond Baird
Regina

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Sperling J at 21; Carruthers AJ at 22

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/31/0354

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Job DCJ

COUNSEL : In Person (Baird)
L M B Lamprati (Crown)

SOLICITORS: In Person (Baird)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - aggravated sexual assault - inconsistent verdicts - evidence - forensic testing - inconsistent evidence - fabrication

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61J, 94
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 97

CASES CITED:
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Regina v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CCA 60782/01

BEAZLEY JA
SPERLING J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Wednesday, 30 October 2002

REGINA v PAUL RAYMOND BAIRD

Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: The appellant appeals against his conviction for an offence under s 61J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), that, on or about 12 May 2000 at Wickham in the State of New South Wales, he did have sexual intercourse with Cherie Patricia Sloan without her consent knowing that she was not consenting, and at the time threatening to inflict actual bodily harm on her by means of an offensive weapon, namely, a knife. The offence carries a penalty of a term of imprisonment for twenty years.

2 The appellant had been indicted on four counts in total. In addition to the count which is the subject of this appeal, he was indicted on another count under s 61J involving an offence against one Lisa-Jane Ellen Barbour, and further on a count that he stole a sum of money and other items from Lisa-Jane Ellen Barbour, being an offence under s 94 of the Crimes Act. The fourth count involved a charge of stealing from Cherie Patricia Sloan under s 94 of the Crimes Act.

3 The charges were heard before Job QC ADCJ and a jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both s 61J counts and upon the s 94 count insofar as it related to Lisa-Jane Ellen Barbour. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the s 94 count insofar as it related to Cherie Patricia Sloan.

4 The appellant has appeared before this Court in person. He presented to the Court written submissions and in addition made oral submissions. There were also admitted into evidence during the course of the appeal five statutory declarations made by the appellant on 18 August 2002 and he was cross-examined on those statutory declarations. In reply to that evidence the Crown read an affidavit of Constable Chris Wiedemann sworn 28 October 2002 and Mr Baird cross-examined Constable Wiedemann.

5 The appellant advanced three bases upon which he submitted his conviction on the s 61J count insofar as it related to Ms Sloan should be…

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 Baird

Details

AGLC: R v Baird [2002] NSWCCA 460
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 460
Decision Date: 30 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the defendant, Baird, who was charged with aggravated sexual assault. The case proceeded in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The defendant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the verdict was inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial. The appeal centred on whether the jury was justified in convicting the defendant despite the inconsistencies in the evidence and the lack of corroboration.

The court was required to determine whether the verdict was legally sound and if the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. This involved examining the reliability of the evidence, the inconsistencies within the testimonies, and the application of the principle that a conviction may be based on uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, provided the court is satisfied of the reliability of the evidence. The court also had to consider whether the inconsistencies were such that they rendered the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the jury was entitled to accept or reject any part of the evidence. The court held that the jury was entitled to convict the defendant based on the evidence presented, even in the absence of corroboration. The inconsistencies in the evidence did not necessarily undermine the reliability of the key witness's testimony. The court found that the jury was properly directed and that the verdict was open to them on the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction. The judgment reinforced the principle that the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts and that their decision should not be lightly interfered with, particularly where the evidence supports a finding of guilt.

Orders