R v Baker - [1999] NSWCCA 277

CITATION: REGINA v BAKER [1999] NSWCCA 277

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60467/98

HEARING DATE(S): 23 June 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 September 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA
v
KELLIE ANNE BAKER

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Studdert J at 2; Adams J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/21/1243

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Delaney DCJ

COUNSEL: Mr P Berman (Crown)
Appellant in person

SOLICITORS: C K Smith (Crown)
Appellant unrepresented

CATCHWORDS: Appeal; unresponsive answers alleging bad character; cross-examination by prosecutor as to motives of other witnesses; lying; relevance of issues at trial; no miscarriage

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Rules 1952
Jury Act 1977
Sentencing Act

CASES CITED:
Wentworth v Rogers (No 10) (1987) 8 NSWLR 399
R v Leak [1969] SASR 172
R v Praturlon (unreported, NSWCCA 29 November 1985)
R v Rich (1988) 102 ACrimR 165
Palmer (1988) 193 CLR1; 96 ACrimR 213
R v Gilbert (unreported, NSWCCA 10 December 1998)
R v Dennis (unreported NSWCCA 23, 25 February 1999)
R v Uhrig (unreported NSWCCA 24 October 1996)
Regina v F (1995) 83 ACrimR 502
Regina v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450
Palmer (193 CLR 1; 96 ACrimR 213)
Piazza (1997) 94 ACrimR 459
Domican (1992) 173 CLR 555; 60 ACrimR 169
R v Hampton (1998) 44 NSWLR 729

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed; Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60467/98

SPIGELMAN CJ
STUDDERT J
ADAMS J

THURSDAY 9 SEPTEMBER 1999

REGINA v KELLIE ANNE BAKER
JUDGMENT
1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Adams J. 2 STUDDERT J: I agree with Adams J. 3 ADAMS J: On 6 August 1998 the appellant was convicted of an offence under s 98 of the Crimes Act 1900, namely armed robbery with wounding of one Colin McIntosh on 6 August 1996 at Blacktown. She was jointly charged with one Mark Wayne Warman but he was acquitted. The Notice of Appeal was filed by facsimile transmission to the Registry on 19 August 1998 and contained a number of enumerated grounds concerning both her conviction and sentence. On 30 April 1999, a further document was transmitted to the Registry by the appellant described as “Arguments for continuation of Appeal”. When the appeal came on for hearing, the appellant was unrepresented but read out to the Court a carefully constructed argument which was directed in the main to additional grounds of appeal. The Crown prosecutor took no point as to this expansion of the appeal and I consider that, in the circumstances, though leave to amend the Notice of Appeal was not sought, such leave should be granted. These oral submissions require consideration of the course of the trial and some of the evidence and it is therefore convenient to deal with them first. In respect of the other two documents, where clarity requires, I have specified the identifying number of the ground. However, some of the grounds are substantially the same, though somewhat differently expressed.…

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 Baker

Details

AGLC: R v Baker [1999] NSWCCA 277
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 277
Decision Date: 9 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Baker arose from a criminal trial in which the defendant, Baker, was convicted of a crime. The appeal centred on the defendant's argument that the trial judge had allowed unresponsive answers that pertained to the defendant's bad character and had allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine defence witnesses on issues that were not relevant to the case. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of a state in Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the trial judge had erred in allowing the prosecutor to elicit unresponsive answers that were prejudicial to the defendant's character and whether the trial judge had erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine defence witnesses on issues that were not relevant to the case. The court had to consider whether the trial judge's decisions had led to a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in allowing the prosecutor to elicit unresponsive answers that pertained to the defendant's bad character. The court held that such evidence was relevant to the case and that the trial judge had not allowed the evidence to be used for any improper purpose. The court also found that the trial judge had not erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine defence witnesses on issues that were relevant to the case. The court held that the prosecutor was entitled to challenge the credibility of the defence witnesses and that the cross-examination was necessary to ensure a fair trial. The court concluded that there had been no miscarriage of justice and dismissed the appeal. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders