Legal Research
Cases
R v Dennis

R v Dennis

Case [1999] NSWCCA 23 25 February 1999

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Unconscionable Conduct

Admissibility of Evidence

Issue Estoppel

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Dennis [1999] NSWCCA 23

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60273/98

HEARING DATE(S): 25/2/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 February 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Stephen Charles DENNIS

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 45; Wood CJatCL at 52; McInerney J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Howie DCJ

COUNSEL: C.K. Maxwell QC (Crown)
T.L. Buddin SC (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (DPP)
T. Murphy (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS:

DECISION: Appeal against conviction upheld, conviction quashed, and new trial ordered

19
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60273/98
SPIGELMAN CJ
WOOD CJ at CL
McINERNEY J
Thursday, 25 February 1999
REGINA v Stephen Charles DENNIS
JUDGMENT
1 McINERNEY J: The appellant was indicted before his Honour Judge Howie QC at the Newcastle District Court on 20 April 1998 on the charge that on 8 August 1997 at Waratah in the State of New South Wales he did rob Matthew Colin Drummond of $20, and immediately before the robbery did use corporal violence on him. The charge was laid pursuant to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The legislature provides a maximum sentence of twenty years penal servitude for this particular offence.
2 At the conclusion of the Crown case an additional charge was preferred against the appellant, one of assault with intent to rob with corporal violence. No point is taken on that being done. It was that charge of which he was ultimately convicted by the jury, being found not guilty of the original charge of robbery.
3 The facts of this case are in a very short compass. The victim had attended the Waratah Leagues Club and had been there for some considerable period of time. He had consumed a great amount of alcohol and had left the club but later returned. At about 10pm he visited the toilet. He conceded in evidence that he was moderately under the influence of liquor at that time. He went to the urinal. The appellant was standing at the urinal on Mr Drummond's left-hand side. When the appellant had finished at the urinal, according to Mr Drummond the appellant walked behind Mr Drummond and said something to him. Mr Drummond went to turn around and the appellant said, "Don't turn around". The appellant then punched Mr Drummond in the head, causing him to fall to the ground, whereupon the appellant began to kick and punch him.
4 Mr Drummond alleged that the appellant then said to him, "What have you got on you?" As Mr Drummond reached for his wallet the appellant pulled the wallet out of his back pocket and looked through it. At that point of time an employee of the club, Mr Cook, walked into the toilets. He gave evidence that he noticed the appellant about a yard away looking through a wallet. Mr Cook said to the appellant, "What is going on here?", and the appellant, who had the wallet in his hand looking through it, said, "This is not my wallet,"…

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 Dennis

Details

AGLC: R v Dennis [1999] NSWCCA 23
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 23
Decision Date: 25 February 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Dennis was heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, Stephen Charles Dennis, was convicted by a jury in the District Court of assaulting Matthew Colin Drummond with intent to rob him with violence, contrary to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. Dennis appealed against his conviction, arguing that the Crown Prosecutor's cross-examination and the trial judge's summing-up on the issue of the truthfulness of other witnesses resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the appeal on the basis of two grounds. Firstly, the Court found that the cross-examination of Dennis by the Crown Prosecutor was improper as it compelled Dennis to comment on the truthfulness of other witnesses, which is an impermissible line of questioning. This type of cross-examination was deemed to be prejudicial and improper, particularly when the accused is being questioned about aspects of the case against them. The second ground of appeal concerned the trial judge's summing-up on the issue of the truthfulness of the witnesses, which the Court found to be prejudicial to Dennis's case. The Court concluded that the appeal against conviction should be upheld, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring a fair trial for the accused and highlighted the dangers of improper cross-examination and trial judge summing-ups in criminal cases.

Orders