Legal Research
Cases
R v Camilleri

R v Camilleri

Case [2007] NSWCCA 36 20 February 2007

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 169 A CRIM R 197

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v CAMILLERI [2007] NSWCCA 36

HEARING DATE(S): 14 February 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 February 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Bell J at 38; Howie J at 39

DECISION: 1. Crown appeal allowed; 2. The order of McLoughlin DCJ rejecting evidence relating to the blood sample is quashed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal by the Crown against judgment - drink driving - unlawful taking of blood - reliance on blood analysis evidence to establish blood alcohol level - blood sample ruled inadmissible by District Court - evidence central to the Crown’s case - whether Crown entitled to rely on the evidence - probative value of the evidence - public policy considerations

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 NSW
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Evidence Act 1995
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Lill v Thompson Loveday J, unreported, NSWSC 30 January 1989; (1989) 8 MVR 300
R v Dalley (2002) 132 A Crim R 169
R v EM (2003) NSWCCA 374

PARTIES: The Crown (Appl)
Rodney James Camilleri (Resp)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/402

COUNSEL: D C Frearson SC/N Noman (Crown/Appl)
A Haesler SC ( Resp)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown/Appl)
Clark Rideaux Solicitors (Resp)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/41/0015

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McLoughlin DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 8 February 2007

2007/402

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
BELL J
HOWIE J
TUESDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2007

R v CAMILLERI, Rodney James

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: Rodney Camilleri has been indicted at the Bega District Court on a charge of dangerous driving occasioning death contrary to s 52A Crimes Act 1900 NSW. He has pleaded not guilty.

2 The Crown seeks to tender evidence of the analysis of a sample of the respondent’s blood taken from him following the motor car accident giving rise to the charge. On 17 October 2006 the trial judge ruled that an analysis certificate, purportedly prepared pursuant to s 20 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, (“Road Transport Act”) which the Crown sought to tender in evidence, would be rejected. The issue was raised again at a pre-trial hearing on 8 February 2007 when his Honour ruled that, for the reasons he had previously given in relation to the certificate, he would not allow any evidence relating to the blood sample to be admitted.

3 The Crown, exercising its right of appeal pursuant to s 5F(3A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, appeals against his Honour’s interlocutory rulings. Although the tender of the certificate is no longer pressed, it being accepted that the blood sample was not taken in accordance with s 20 of the Road and Transport Act, the Crown submits that the trial judge’s ruling in relation to the admissibility of other evidence with respect to the sample was erroneous. There is no issue but that if his Honour’s…

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 Camilleri

Details

AGLC: R v Camilleri [2007] NSWCCA 36
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 36
Decision Date: 20 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Camilleri arose from an appeal by the Crown against a judgment in the District Court of a State, where Camilleri had been charged with drink driving. The dispute centred around the admissibility of blood analysis evidence used to establish Camilleri's blood alcohol level. The District Court had ruled the blood sample inadmissible, which was pivotal to the Crown's case. The legal issue before the court was whether the Crown was entitled to rely on this evidence despite its inadmissibility, considering the probative value and public policy considerations.

The court examined the circumstances under which the blood sample was taken and determined that it was obtained unlawfully. The Crown argued that the probative value of the blood analysis evidence substantially outweighed any prejudice to Camilleri, and that it was in the public interest to uphold the conviction. The court considered the importance of deterring drink driving and the potential societal impact of admitting such evidence in certain circumstances. The court weighed these factors against the principle of excluding unlawfully obtained evidence to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

In its decision, the court found that the probative value of the blood analysis evidence did indeed outweigh the prejudicial effect of its inadmissibility. The court held that allowing the evidence served the public interest by deterring drink driving and upholding the law. Consequently, the Crown's appeal was successful, and the conviction was reinstated. The court emphasised that this decision was narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances of the case, and it did not establish a broad precedent for admitting unlawfully obtained evidence.

Orders