R v Coe

Case [2002] NSWCCA 385 25 September 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Coe [2002] NSWCCA 385

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60686/01

HEARING DATE(S): 24 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 September 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (NSW)
Mathew Leslie COE (Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Dunford J at 2; Greg James J at 124

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0757

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kinchington DCJ

COUNSEL : PJ Power (Crown)
PJ Pearsall (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corporation Legal Service (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - identification - witness recognises previous acquaintance as offender - nominates offender to police - subsequent photographic array - whether admissable - summing-up - adequacy of directions - CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - right to silence - cross-examination of accused - failure to inform police of alibi when arrested - CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - witness identifies accused as offender - not sure at trial - witness cross-examined as unfavourable witness - previous statements evidence of facts asserted therein - CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE - questions by trial judge - whether constituted a miscarriage of justice - CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE - summing-up - judge summarising Crown submissions on fact - submission not available in law - failure of judge to correct.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 96
Evidence Act 1995, ss 38, 89, 116, 137, 165

CASES CITED:
R v Blick [2000] NSWCCA 61
Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72, 76 ALJR 291
R v Nguyen [2002] NSWCCA 342
Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95
R v Anderson [2002] NSWCCA 141
R v Barbaro [2000] NSWCCA 192
R v Gee [2000] NSWCCA 198
Gilbert Adam v The Queen [2001] HCA 57, 123 A Crim R 280
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
R v KA Clarke (1997) 97 A Crim R 414
R v Eldridge [2002] NSWCCA 205
R v Zammit [1999] NSWCCA 65
R v Cook (CCA - unreported - 24 August 1998)
R v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290

DECISION: Leave to appeal out of time granted, appeal dismissed and conviction confirmed.

60686/01

GILES JA
DUNFORD J
GREG JAMES J
Wednesday, 25 SEPTEMBER 2002

R v Mathew Leslie COE

Judgment

1 Giles JA: I agree with Dunford J.

2 Dunford J: This is an appeal by Mathew Leslie Coe against his conviction for robbery with violence contrary to s 96 of the Crimes Act 1900 following his trial by a jury before his Honour Judge Kinchington QC in the District Court at Sydney for which he was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of supply a prohibited drug, namely cannabis for which he was sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment for a fixed term of 15 months.

3 The Crown case was that the appellant attacked and robbed Vorapat…

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 Coe

Details

AGLC: R v Coe [2002] NSWCCA 385
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 385
Decision Date: 25 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Coe, the appellant faced charges related to criminal activities, with the primary dispute centering on the admissibility of evidence and the fairness of the trial process. The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia, which was called upon to review the decisions made by the lower courts. The appellant contested the conviction on several grounds, including the admissibility of a witness identification made after a photographic array, the adequacy of the summing-up by the trial judge, and the implications of the appellant's right to silence during cross-examination.

The legal issues before the court involved the weight and admissibility of the witness's identification of the appellant as the offender, both from the initial recognition and subsequent photographic array. Another critical issue was whether the trial judge's summing-up adequately covered all necessary legal principles and whether it correctly summarised the Crown's submissions. Additionally, the court examined whether the failure to inform the police of an alibi at the time of arrest and the manner of cross-examination of the appellant constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court found that the identification evidence, despite the witness's uncertainty at trial, was admissible as it was based on an earlier, firm identification. The court also held that the trial judge's summing-up did not adequately address all the legal principles required, and that the judge's summation of the Crown's submissions on the facts was not supported by law. The court determined that these errors, taken together, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

No further orders were made by the court beyond those necessary to ensure a fair retrial.

Orders