REGINA v ELLIS [2003] NSWCCA 319 revised - 27/04/2004
HEARING DATE(S):
21 August 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:
5 November 2003
JUDGMENT OF:
Spigelman CJ at 1; Sully J at 101; O'Keefe J at 102; Hidden J at 103; Buddin J at 103
DECISION:
Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
EVIDENCE - tendency and coincidence - criminal trial - admissibility - multiple counts on indictment - where trial judge admitted evidence of each offence as tendency and coincidence evidence in relation to all other offences - where trial judge applied Evidence Act 1995 s 101 in terms - whether test in Pfennig v The Queen applicable - whether tendency and coincidence evidence admissible.
S J Odgers SC / H Dhanji (Appellant) R Cogswell SC / G Rowling / J Quilter (Crown)
SOLICITORS:
D J Humphreys (Appellant) S E O'Connor (Crown)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
01/11/0453
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Holt ADCJ
60764/01
SPIGELMAN CJ SULLY J O’KEEFE J HIDDEN J BUDDIN J
Wednesday 5 November 2003
REGINA v Darren Douglas ELLIS
FACTS
Following a trial before Holt ADCJ and a jury, the Appellant was convicted on 24 October 2001 of eleven counts of break enter and steal or attempted break enter and steal with intent or aggravated break…
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 Ellis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319
Case
[2003] NSWCCA 319
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Ellis came before the court in a criminal trial where the defendant, Ellis, faced multiple counts on the indictment. The central issue was whether the trial judge correctly admitted evidence of each offence as tendency and coincidence evidence in relation to all other offences, and whether the application of the Evidence Act 1995 s 101 was appropriate. Specifically, the court had to determine if the test outlined in Pfennig v The Queen should be applied to assess the admissibility of this evidence.
The court considered whether the trial judge's approach in admitting the evidence was consistent with the statutory provisions and case law. The key legal issue was the interpretation and application of the Evidence Act 1995 s 101, which pertains to the admissibility of evidence of prior convictions and other acts. The court examined whether the judge correctly applied the relevant principles to determine if the evidence was admissible under the tendency and coincidence provisions.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the trial judge’s application of the statutory test, as well as the relevant case law, to determine the admissibility of the evidence. It was crucial to assess if the judge's reasoning aligned with the statutory framework and judicial precedents. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles set out in the Evidence Act and the relevant case law, confirming that the evidence was properly admitted. The decision was made in accordance with the statutory provisions and judicial interpretations, ensuring the evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial.
The court upheld the trial judge's decision, confirming that the evidence was properly admitted under the provisions of the Evidence Act. It was determined that the judge had correctly applied the relevant statutory test and case law in assessing the admissibility of the evidence. The court found no error in the trial judge's reasoning and application of the law, thereby affirming the admissibility of the evidence in question.