Legal Research
Cases
R v Madigan

R v Madigan

Case [2005] NSWCCA 170 9 June 2005

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
R v Madigan [2005] NSWCCA 170

HEARING DATE(S): 12 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

9 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Wood CJ at CL at 1; Grove J at 130; Hoeben J at 131

DECISION:
1. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - appeal against conviction - aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence - plea of not guilty - whether trial judge erred in admitting surveillance log book into evidence - whether trial judge erred by admitting voice identification evidence - admission of expert evidence.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 6
Evidence Act 1995 - s 55, 56(1), 79,135, 137, 165(1)(b), 165(2),177

CASES CITED:
Butera v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic)(1987) 164 CLR 180
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593
Li v The Queen (2003) 139 A Crim R 281
R v Gao [2003] NSWCCA 390
R v GK (2001) 53 NSWLR 317
R v Lansdell [1995] NSWCCA 22 May 1995
R v Leung (1999) 47 NSWLR 405
R v Riscuta and Niga [2003] NSWCCA 6
R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364

PARTIES:
Regina
Andrew Paul Madigan

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/290

COUNSEL:
G Rowling (Crown)
T Watts

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
S E O'Connor

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
02/31/0462

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Patten DCJ

- 38 -

2005/290

WOOD CJ at CL
GROVE J
HOEBEN J

Thursday 9 June 2005

Regina v Andrew Paul MADIGAN

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: The Appellant stood for trial in May 2004 in the District Court together with a co-accused, Michael John Woods. They were charged with an offence of aggravated break and enter of the office of the Australian Reptile Park at Somersby on 21 January 2002 and whilst therein committing the serious indictable offence of larceny. The circumstance of aggravation was that they were in company.

2 A verdict of guilty was returned on 28 May 2004 in relation to each of them. They were remanded in custody until 25 June 2004 when the Appellant was sentenced to an overall sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years to date from 28 May 2004. The co-accused was sentenced to an overall sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months also to date from 28 May 2004.

3 The Appellant now brings an appeal against that conviction, although not in relation to the sentence.

THE FACTS

THE BREAK AND ENTER

4 Evidence led in the Prosecution case established that there was a break in at the office of the Reptile Park during the evening of 21 January 2002. There was no issue that the person or persons responsible stole a gun safe containing seven firearms. Evidence from Chubb Security, and from the officer designated to respond to the alarm system which had been installed in the office complex established that the break in occurred…

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 Madigan

Details

AGLC: R v Madigan [2005] NSWCCA 170
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 170
Decision Date: 9 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Madigan involved the appellant, who was convicted of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence. The appellant pleaded not guilty and subsequently appealed against his conviction. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal in Sydney. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain pieces of evidence during the trial.

The court had to consider whether the trial judge erred in admitting a surveillance log book into evidence. The appellant argued that the log book was unreliable and should not have been considered by the jury. The court examined the circumstances under which the log book was created and whether it was properly authenticated. Additionally, the court assessed whether the trial judge erred in admitting voice identification evidence, focusing on the reliability and admissibility of the voice identification. The appellant contended that the voice identification process was flawed and prejudicial. Furthermore, the court reviewed the admission of expert evidence regarding the reliability of the voice identification process, ensuring it was appropriately qualified and relevant.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the surveillance log book into evidence, as it was properly authenticated and relevant to the case. The court also concluded that the voice identification evidence was admissible and reliable, and the expert evidence was appropriately qualified. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the application of relevant legal principles.

Orders