Legal Research
Cases
R v Knight

R v Knight

Case [2001] NSWCCA 114 30 March 2001

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2001) 160 FLR 465
120 A Crim R 381

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v. KNIGHT (aka BLACK) [2001] NSWCCA 114

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60395 of 2000

HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 22 November 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 March 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v. KNIGHT, John Adrian
(aka BLACK, David)

JUDGMENT OF: Heydon JA at 1; Studdert J at 2; Greg James J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0739

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Viney, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: R.A. Hulme
App: T.J. Golding

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: Stephen Hodges

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal - admissibility of handwriting samples - particulars of identification - statutory authority to require particulars in accused's handwriting when in custody - provision of handwriting sample not an admission - NSW Police Instructions not improper.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Act (Cth) 1914
Financial Transaction Reports Act (Cth) 1988
Evidence Act 1995
Evidence Act 1898

CASES CITED:
Bunning v. Cross (1977-78) 141 CLR 54
Browning (1991) 103 FLR 425
Adami (1961-62) 108 CLR 605
Hannes [2000] NSWCCA 503
McPhail & Tivey (1988) 36 A. Crim. R. 390
Fullerton v. Commissioner of Police (1984) 1 NSWLR 159
Carr [1972] 1 NSWLR 608
Carr (1973) 127 CLR 662
Duffield v. Police (No. 2) [1971] NZLR 710
Sernack v. McTavish (1970) 15 FLR 381
Catell v. Rolfe (1993) Vol. 1, No. 5, NSW Courts Review, June 1994
Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
Hockley v. Power (1982-85) 6 Petty Sessions Review 2823
Foster (1993) 67 ALJR 550
Sorby v. The Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281
Environment Protection Authority v. Caltex Refining Co. Pty. Limited (1992-93) 178 CLR 477
Bulejcik (1995-96) 185 CLR 375
Kyriakou (1987) 29 A. Crim. R. 50
Merritt & Rosso (1985) 19 A. Crim. R. 360
House (1936) 55 CLR 499

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60395 of 2000

CORAM: HEYDON, JA.

FRIDAY 30 MARCH 2001

REGINA v. JOHN ADRIAN KNIGHT (aka DAVID BLACK)

JUDGMENT

1 HEYDON, JA: I agree with Greg James, J.

2 STUDDERT, J: I agree with Greg James, J.

3 GREG JAMES, J: The nature of the proceedings

4 This is an application for leave to appeal from convictions on some 20 charges after a trial before his Honour Judge Viney, QC. and a jury in the District Court at Sydney.

5 Those charges comprised 13 charges of make false instrument, an offence under s.300(1) of the Crimes Act (NSW) 1900, punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment; five charges of forge document deliverable to a public authority, an offence under s.67(b) of the Crimes Act (Cth) 1914, punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment; one offence of attempt to open bank account in false name contrary to s.24(1) of the Financial Transaction Reports Act (Cth) 1988, an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment; and one…

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 Knight

Details

AGLC: R v Knight [2001] NSWCCA 114
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 114
Decision Date: 30 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Knight involved a criminal appeal where the central issue was the admissibility of handwriting samples provided by the accused while in custody. The appeal was heard in the higher court, which was tasked with determining the legal principles surrounding the acquisition and use of such samples in court proceedings. The defendant argued that the samples were obtained without proper authority and were improperly used to identify his handwriting, raising questions about the statutory framework and police procedures.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of statutory provisions that allow for the acquisition of handwriting samples from an accused in custody. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the requirement for particulars of identification and the use of such samples complied with legal standards. A key point of contention was whether the provision of a handwriting sample constituted an admission of guilt, and whether the New South Wales Police Instructions governing the process were compliant with the law.

The court's reasoning focused on the statutory authority for obtaining handwriting samples and the established protocols within the New South Wales Police. It found that the procedures followed were in line with statutory requirements and that the samples were obtained lawfully. The court also clarified that the provision of a handwriting sample does not equate to an admission of guilt, thus preserving the accused's right to remain silent. The analysis of the NSW Police Instructions revealed that they were not improper and were consistent with legal standards. The court ultimately upheld the admissibility of the handwriting samples, affirming that the evidence was obtained through lawful means and was properly admitted in the trial.

The final orders of the court affirmed the lower court's decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming the admissibility of the handwriting samples. The court's ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and police guidelines when obtaining such evidence, while also safeguarding the accused's rights.

Orders