Legal Research
Cases
R v Douglas

R v Douglas

Case [2000] NSWCCA 275 28 July 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v BARRY DOUGLAS [2000] NSWCCA 275

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60836/98

HEARING DATE(S): 3 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 July 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v Barry DOUGLAS

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Sully J at 87; Sperling J at 88

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0953

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Armitage DCJ

COUNSEL : Appellant: M Austin
Crown: M Grogan

SOLICITORS: Appellant: Brock Partners
Crown: S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - joinder of counts against the accused - application for separate trials - multiple weapons and armed robbery offences - admissions during an electronic record of interview (ERISP) - police holding the accused incommunicado during search of home - denial of access to lawyer - s84, s85 and s 135 Evidence Act - onus of establishing illegality - evidentiary overlap between counts - directions given to the jury that each count be considered separately - unfair prejudice not arising.

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60836 of 1998

MASON P
SULLY J
SPERLING J

Friday 28 July 2000

REGINA v Barry Clifford DOUGLAS

The appellant was indicted on 17 counts including weapons offences, armed robbery and malicious infliction of actual bodily harm. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before a District Court Judge and jury. There was a directed verdict of not guilty in relation to the fourth count. The appellant was found guilty on the remaining counts. A series of concurrent sentences was imposed, the longest being a sentence of 16 years imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years.
On the day of his arrest, 28 May 1997, the appellant participated in two lengthy ERISPs at Penrith Police Station. He made full admissions in relation to firearm offences at Penrith and also in relation to several robberies on the northern beaches which became the subject matter of eight of the counts in the indictment. On 12 June 1997 there was a further ERISP at Maroubra Police station during which the appellant made admissions as to several other robberies which became the subject of the other counts in the indictment.
This appeal against conviction raised two grounds, namely:

· Evidence of the admissions made during ERISPs on the day of the arrest should have been excluded;
· The trial judge was in error when he failed to grant the appellant’s application for separate trials.
Of the first ground, after a lengthy voir dire the trial judge rejected the appellant’s evidence that he agreed to make the ERISP admissions because of a deal involving the manner the police would treat his de facto wife and the other girl living at the appellant’s house. On appeal (and not at trial), the appellant complained of the trial judge’s failure to make findings based upon a conversation which the appellant said he took to amount to a refusal to permit him to have access to a lawyer. An investigating detective told the appellant that he was not permitted to…

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 Douglas

Details

AGLC: R v Douglas [2000] NSWCCA 275
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 275
Decision Date: 28 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Douglas was heard by a court in Australia, involving the accused, Douglas, who faced multiple charges of armed robbery and weapons offences. The dispute centred on the joinder of these counts against the accused and the application for separate trials. The court had to consider the admissibility of admissions made by Douglas during an electronic record of interview, as well as issues concerning his treatment by police, including being held incommunicado and denied access to a lawyer during a search of his home.

The legal issues before the court included whether the counts should be tried separately, the admissibility of the recorded interview under sections 84 and 85 of the Evidence Act, and the impact of the accused's treatment by police on the admissibility of evidence under section 135 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine the onus of establishing illegality and whether there was an evidentiary overlap between the counts that would result in unfair prejudice to the accused.

The court found that the counts could be tried together without causing unfair prejudice to the accused, as each count would be considered separately by the jury. The court also ruled that the admissions made by Douglas during the recorded interview were admissible, despite his treatment by police, as the onus of establishing illegality lay with the accused. The court further noted that while there was some evidentiary overlap between the counts, this did not result in unfair prejudice to the accused. The court provided clear directions to the jury to consider each count individually, ensuring a fair trial.

In conclusion, the court denied the application for separate trials, allowed the admissions made during the recorded interview to be used as evidence, and provided appropriate directions to the jury. The court's decision ensured a fair trial for the accused while upholding the integrity of the legal process.

Orders