R v Doyle - [2000] NSWSC 512

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v DOYLE [2000] NSWSC 512

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70063/98

HEARING DATE(S): n/a

JUDGMENT DATE: 9 June 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Edward Emmett DOYLE

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1

COUNSEL :

SOLICITORS: Crown: Mr W Abadee
Applicant: In person

CATCHWORDS: Application under s474D of The Crimes Act

DECISION: See paragraphs 68 and 69

- 34 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
NO: 70063/98
Friday, 9 June 2000
HULME J

APPLICATION OF Edward Emmett DOYLE

APPLICATION FOR AN INQUIRY UNDER S474D OF THE CRIMES ACT

1�� HIS HONOUR: On 14 July 1998, Edward Emmett Doyle made application under Section 474D of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) seeking that this Court direct that an inquiry be conducted into “the facts pertaining to my conviction” at the Castlereagh Street Local Court on 7 February 1985. Mr Doyle sought also a number of other orders directed to limiting publicity.
2�� So far as is presently relevant, sections 474D and associated sections provide:-

“474A (3) In this Part, a reference to a review of, or enquiry into, a conviction or sentence includes a reference to a review of, or enquiry into, any aspect of the proceedings giving rise to the conviction or sentence.

474D (1) An application for an inquiry into a conviction or sentence may be made to the Supreme Court by the convicted person…

474E (1) After considering an application under Section 474D or on its own motion:

(a) The Supreme Court may direct that an inquiry be conducted by a prescribed person into the conviction or sentence, or
(b) The Supreme Court may refer the whole case to the Court of Criminal Appeal, to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1912.

(2) Action under subsection (1) may only be taken if it appears that there is a doubt or question as to the convicted person’s guilt, as to any mitigating circumstances in the case or as to any part of the evidence in the case.
(3) The Supreme Court may refuse to consider or otherwise deal with an application. Without limiting the foregoing, the Supreme Court may refuse to consider or otherwise deal with an application if:
(a) it appears that the matter:

(i) has been fully dealt with in the proceedings giving rise to the conviction or sentence (or in any proceedings on appeal from the conviction or sentence), or

(ii) has previously been dealt with under this Part or under the repealed provisions, and

(b) the Supreme Court is not satisfied that there are special facts or special circumstances that justify the taking of further action.

(3A) The Supreme Court may defer consideration of an application under Section 474D if:

(a) …
(c) the application fails to disclose sufficient information to enable the conviction or sentence to be properly considered.

474F An inquiry is to be conducted as soon as practicable after a direction for it has been given under section 474…

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 Doyle

Details

AGLC: R v Doyle [2000] NSWSC 512
Case: [2000] NSWSC 512
Decision Date: 9 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the applicant, Doyle, applied for a post-conviction order under section 474D of the Crimes Act. Doyle sought relief from his conviction and sentence for a crime committed several years ago. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of the state, where the applicant argued that there were significant grounds to question the validity of his conviction and sentence. The Crown opposed the application, asserting that Doyle's arguments were without merit and that his conviction and sentence were just and lawful.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether Doyle's application satisfied the stringent criteria set out in section 474D of the Crimes Act. The court was required to determine whether the application contained new evidence that was not previously available or whether it was simply a rehash of old arguments. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the new evidence, if accepted, was of such a nature that it might have affected the outcome of the original trial.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the application did not meet the criteria for a post-conviction order as the new evidence provided was not of the kind that would have reasonably led to a different outcome. The court emphasised that the application must not be used as a vehicle for a second appeal. The court concluded that the application did not satisfy the necessary threshold, and therefore, the application was dismissed.

As a result of the court's decision, the applicant's application for a post-conviction order was denied. The conviction and sentence remained in place, and Doyle's legal recourse was limited to other available avenues for challenging the conviction and sentence.

Orders