R v DAVISON (Aka Eckerman) - [2003] NSWCCA 95

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v DAVISON (aka Eckerman) [2003] NSWCCA 95

FILE NUMBER(S):
60037/03

HEARING DATE(S): 14/03/2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 14/03/2003

PARTIES:
The Crown
Joel Davison (aka Andrew William Eckerman)

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA Dowd J Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/51/0025

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Freeman DCJ

COUNSEL:
H K Dhanji (Appellant)
DML Woodburne (Crown)

SOLICITORS:

CATCHWORDS:
Appeal against conviction after plea of guilty; element of offence not made out; no power to correct error; referral back to local court.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Firearms Act 1996
Justices Act 1902
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998

DECISION:
Time for notice of appeal extended; appeal against conviction allowed; District Court conviction quashed; to proceed before Local Court, Coffs Harbour.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60037/2003
MEAGHER JA
DOWD J
BARR J
Friday 14 March 2003

REGINA v JOEL DAVISON (aka Andrew William ECKERMAN)

Judgment

MEAGHER JA: I agree with Dowd J.
DOWD J: The appellant, who also is known by the name Andrew William Eckerman, has appealed against his conviction on two charges pursuant to s97 (2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the Act”) that on 28 November 2001 at Coffs Harbour he did first, rob one Terrence Ablett of forty dollars whilst then being armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit, a large, kitchen style knife; secondly, that on 29 November 2001, at Woolgoolga, he did rob Amber Maher of ninety dollars in cash, the property of a Mobil Service Station, whilst then being armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit, a large kitchen style knife.
On 12 February 2002 the appellant was committed for sentence to the District Court under s51A of the Justices Act 1902 where a sentence hearing was conducted by Freeman DCJ on 17 April 2002. On 22 April 2002 his Honour sentenced the appellant on the first count to imprisonment for six years with a non-parole period of three and a half years. An identical term was imposed on the second count, both sentences commencing from the appellant’s entry into custody on 29 November 2001.
An application was made by the appellant for leave to appeal against the sentences on 11 May 2002. The appellant now seeks an extension of time for leave to appeal against his convictions on the ground that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, on the basis that the evidence does not support the charges to which the appellant pleaded guilty.
In the circumstances of this matter I would grant leave to extend a time to bring the appeal.
Events Giving Rise to the Charges
The facts giving rise to the charges were, on the first charge, that at 10:30pm on the night of 28 November 2001 the operator of the Bogas Service Station in Coffs Harbour closed the service station and went to his vehicle parked at the rear. As he sat in the driver’s seat the appellant approached him wearing a…

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 DAVISON (Aka Eckerman)

Details

AGLC: R v Davison (Aka Eckerman) [2003] NSWCCA 95
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 95
Decision Date: 14 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Davison, also known as Eckerman, the defendant was convicted of an offence under section 474.17 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The court was required to consider an appeal against the conviction, which was entered by the defendant through a plea of guilty. The central issue before the court was whether the elements of the offence were sufficiently established to uphold the conviction. Specifically, the court had to determine if the element of the offence concerning the defendant's knowledge was adequately proven.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding the guilty plea and the necessity for all elements of the offence to be established. It was determined that one of the essential elements of the offence, namely the defendant's knowledge, was not made out in the evidence presented. The court further found that it lacked the jurisdiction to correct this error and that the matter needed to be referred back to the local court for further proceedings. The court's reasoning was grounded in the requirement that all elements of an offence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that a guilty plea does not waive this requirement.

The court concluded that the conviction could not stand due to the insufficient proof of one of the elements of the offence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The matter was remitted to the local court for further consideration in light of the court's findings. The orders of the court included the quashing of the conviction and the direction that the case be dealt with in accordance with the law.

Orders