Legal Research
Cases
R v Heuston

R v Heuston

Case [2003] NSWCCA 172 30 June 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
140 A Crim R 422

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v. HEUSTON [2003] NSWCCA 172

HEARING DATE(S): 16 June 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Simpson J at 61; Greg James J at 62

DECISION: 1.Appeal allowed. 2. Convictions quashed. 3. New trial ordered. 4. Sentences imposed on 7 June 1996 backdated so as to have commenced on 9 March 1993.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Review of conviction - Reference by Attorney-General - Dealt with as appeal - Fresh evidence - Evidence from Police Royal Commission and Police Integrity Commission - Delay in complaint - Longman direction - Whether verdict of acquittal or new trial.

LEGISLATION CITED: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1997
Crimes Act 1900 ss.474C, 474D, 474L

CASES CITED: Jones v. The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Longman v. The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
R v. BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241
R v. Gregory [2002] NSWCCA 199
R v. Heuston, Court of Criminal appeal, 20/6/95
R v. Jovanovic (1997) 42 NSWLR 520
R v. Uhrig NSWCCA 24/10/96
WRC (2002) ACrimR 89

PARTIES :
Regina - respondent
Neil Heuston - appellant

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60018/03

COUNSEL: Mr. T. Game WC with Ms. R. Burgess for appellant
Mr. D. Howard for respondent Crown

SOLICITORS: D.J. Humphries for appellant
S.E. O'Connor for respondent Crown

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC93/51/0177

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Kinchington DCJ

CCA 60018/03
DC 93/51/0177

HODGSON JA
SIMPSON J
GREG JAMES J
Monday 30 June 2003

R v. Neil HEUSTON

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: On 18 April 1994, in the District Court at Coffs Harbour, the appellant was found guilty by a jury of two offences alleged to have been committed at Bowraville near Coffs Harbour on 15 September 1992, namely:

2 He was sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment, which was subsequently reduced on appeal to a total of 13 years imprisonment from 9 March 1993, with a minimum term expiring on 8 March 2003.

3 The appellant also appealed against conviction, and this appeal was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 20 June 1995.

4 On 9 June 1997, the appellant made an application under s.474D of the Crimes Act 1900, seeking a review of this conviction. This application was dismissed by Barr J on 29 August 2000.

5 On 12 June 2002, the appellant made an application to the Governor under s.474B of the Crimes Act, seeking a further review of his conviction. On 28 January 2003, the Attorney-General referred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal pursuant to s.474C(1)(b) of the Crimes Act; and this is the matter…

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 Heuston

Details

AGLC: R v Heuston [2003] NSWCCA 172
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 172
Decision Date: 30 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Heuston, the defendant, who had previously been acquitted of charges of misconduct in public office, sought a review of his conviction. The Attorney-General referred the matter to the court for review, which was treated as an appeal. The defendant sought to introduce fresh evidence from the Police Royal Commission and the Police Integrity Commission, arguing that the delay in lodging his complaint warranted either a verdict of acquittal or a new trial. The central legal issues the court had to address were the admissibility of this new evidence and the appropriate remedy if the evidence was found to be relevant and admissible.

The court first considered the principles governing the admissibility of fresh evidence in criminal cases. It noted that such evidence could be admitted if it was relevant, material, and could not have reasonably been adduced at the original trial. The court examined the timeliness and circumstances of the defendant's complaint and whether any prejudice to the respondent would result from the delay. The court also explored the Longman direction, which deals with the situation when fresh evidence is presented after a verdict of acquittal. The court had to decide whether, in light of the new evidence, the original acquittal should stand or if a new trial was warranted.

After careful consideration, the court found that the new evidence was indeed relevant and material. The court concluded that the delay in lodging the complaint did not inherently render the evidence inadmissible, as the circumstances justified the late presentation. The court determined that the evidence could have a significant impact on the original verdict, thereby affecting the fairness of the proceedings. Accordingly, the court decided that the appropriate remedy was to order a new trial rather than acquit the defendant outright. This decision ensured that the new evidence could be fully considered in a fresh proceeding.

The final orders of the court mandated that a new trial be conducted to reassess the charges against the defendant in light of the new evidence. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that justice is served and that all relevant evidence is considered in criminal proceedings, even if it surfaces after the original trial has concluded.

Orders