R v Cannon (No. 2) - [2020] NSWDC 356

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cannon (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 356
Hearing dates: 17 June 2020
Date of orders: 17 June 2020
Decision date: 17 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
The Accused be allowed to lead evidence of good character from the witnesses proposed, and the Crown be permitted to adduce the evidence of the connection between the Accused’s phone and the websites referred to in this judgement, as contained in the report

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE — Character evidence — Advance rulings
EVIDENCE — Character evidence — Good character
EVIDENCE — Character evidence — Witnesses

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
EvidenceAct 1995

Cases Cited:
Clegg v R [2017] NSWCCA 125

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Matthew David Cannon (Accused)
Representation:
Donna Daleo (Crown Prosecutor)
Chris O’Donnell SC (senior counsel) (Accused)
Parisa Hart (junior counsel) (Accused)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Criminal Law Centre (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/00376401
Publication restriction: No publication of the name of the Complainant or of any information which may enable her identity to be ascertained

EX TEMPORE REVISED JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Matthew David Cannon is before this court for trial on 16 charges set forth in an indictment upon which he was arraigned before me yesterday 16 June 2020. He pleaded not guilty to each of the offences.
There are a series of offences alleged contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900; Count 1 through to and including count 6 are alleged contrary to that provision.
Count 7 is an allegation alleged contrary to s 66C(3) Crimes Act 1900. Count 8 is an alternative to count 7 alleging an offence contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900.
Counts 9, 10, 11 and 12 are once again contrary to s 61M (2) Crimes Act 1900.
Count 13 is an offence contrary to s 66D Crimes Act 1900 in the alternative to which Count 14 is alleged in terms contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900.
Counts 15 and 16 are contrary to s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900.
The offences are alleged to have occurred between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2017 for count 1 through to and including count 4, between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017 for count 5 through to and including count 9, between 1 January 2017 and 1 January 2018 for counts 10 and 11, between 1 January 2017 and 3 March 2018 for count 12 through to and including count 14, between 1 January 2018 and 1 July 2018 for count 15 and between 1 January 2018 and 23 July 2018 for count 16.

PROPOSED EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER

The Crown was put on notice that the accused intended to call evidence of good character. There are two aspects, the first of which is in terms that he has no prior convictions for any criminal offence. The Crown does not oppose evidence in those terms upon which the accused is entitled to rely. But the evidence…

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 Cannon (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Cannon (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 356
Case: [2020] NSWDC 356
Decision Date: 17 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cannon (No. 2) was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the accused faced charges related to possession of child exploitation material. The central issue was the admissibility of evidence related to the accused's character and the connection between his phone and specific websites. The court was required to decide whether the accused could lead evidence of his good character and if the Crown could present evidence linking the accused's phone to the aforementioned websites.

The accused sought to introduce character evidence from proposed witnesses to demonstrate his good character, while the Crown argued against such evidence. The court had to weigh the relevance and probative value of this character evidence against its potential prejudicial effect. Additionally, the Crown needed to establish the connection between the accused's phone and specific websites to substantiate the charges. The court examined whether this evidence could be admitted and if it was necessary for the case's resolution.

The court ruled that the accused could present evidence of his good character from the proposed witnesses. The court found that this evidence was relevant and could assist in understanding the accused's disposition, which was pertinent to the case. Regarding the Crown's evidence linking the accused's phone to the websites, the court held that such evidence was necessary and should be admitted. The court concluded that this evidence was crucial for the Crown to prove its case against the accused. Consequently, the Crown was permitted to present this evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Accused be allowed to lead evidence of good character from the witnesses proposed, and the Crown be permitted to adduce the evidence of the connection between the Accused’s phone and the websites referred to in this judgement, as contained in the report

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Cannon (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 356
Hearing dates:	17 June 2020
Date of orders:	17 June 2020
Decision date:	17 June 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	The Accused be allowed to lead evidence of good character from the witnesses proposed, and the Crown be permitted to adduce the evidence of the connection between the Accused’s phone and the websites referred to in this judgement, as contained in the report
Catchwords:	EVIDENCE — Character evidence — Advance rulings EVIDENCE — Character evidence — Good character EVIDENCE — Character evidence — Witnesses
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 EvidenceAct 1995
Cases Cited:	Clegg v R [2017] NSWCCA 125
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Matthew David Cannon (Accused)
Representation:	Donna Daleo (Crown Prosecutor) Chris O’Donnell SC (senior counsel) (Accused) Parisa Hart (junior counsel) (Accused) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Criminal Law Centre (Accused)
File Number(s):	2018/00376401
Publication restriction:	No publication of the name of the Complainant or of any information which may enable her identity to be ascertained