R v Martin - [2002] NSWCCA 290

CITATION: R v MARTIN [2002] NSWCCA 290

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60897/01

HEARING DATE(S): 11 July 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 2002

PARTIES :

Appellant - Peter Leslie Martin
Respondent - Crown

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Dowd J at 70; Carruthers AJ at 71

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/51/0016

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ducker DCJ

COUNSEL : A J Bellanto QC - Appellant
P J Power - Crown

SOLICITORS: James Fuggle - Appellant
S E O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL APPEAL - application for extension of time to appeal - appeal against conviction - whether verdict was unsafe - Grevious bodily harm - blood DNA evidence - explanation for presence of blood - alibi - evidence of good character - confession evidence

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82

DECISION: Extend the time to appeal up to and including the date of the filing of the notice of appeal.; Appeal dismissed.

60897 of 2001
SHELLER JA
DOWD J
CARRUTHERS AJ

REGINA v Peter Leslie MARTIN

Judgment

The appellant applied for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction on 28 September 2001 by a jury in the District Court in Lismore on two charges. The first charge was that on 3 July 1998 he maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm upon Gary Edwards with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The second charge was that on the same date he maliciously wounded Eli Edwards with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Both charges arose from the appellant's involvement with two other men in an attack on Gary and Eli Edwards. One of the assailants, Colin Stevens, was subsequently convicted for his role in instituting and coordinating the attack. The appellant denied that he had been involved in the incident.

The appellant was arrested after the police identified his blood on a bat used in the assaults and on the inside of the left shoe which was worn by Stevens during the assaults. The appellant sought to explain the presence of his blood on these articles by arguing that the blood must have been spilt during the afternoon of the day of the assaults after a wound he had sustained to his left index finger on the day prior had bled when he accompanied Stevens to Stevens's farm. The appellant relied on this explanation; an alibi which was supported by his wife; the uncontested evidence of his good character; and the evidence of Stevens, who named two other men as the people who accompanied him to commit the assaults.

The Crown case was based on the blood/DNA evidence and the testimony of the appellant's former business partner who claimed that the appellant had made confessions to him as to his involvement in the attacks. The appellant challenged the reliability of the evidence of his former business partner on the basis that the animosity between them was such that his evidence was untruthful.

It was argued…

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2002] NSWCCA 290
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 290
Decision Date: 23 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Martin, was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on a woman. He appealed against the conviction and sought an extension of time to do so. The appeal hinged on the safety of the verdict and the admissibility and weight of several pieces of evidence, including blood DNA evidence, an explanation for the presence of the appellant's blood at the scene, an alibi, evidence of good character, and confession evidence. The court was required to determine whether the verdict was unsafe and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed despite the lateness of the application.

The court considered whether the verdict was unsafe and whether the lateness of the application for an extension of time should prevent the appeal from being heard. The court noted that the evidence of the appellant's blood at the scene, coupled with the lack of any explanation, was significant. However, the court also considered the explanation for the presence of the blood, the alibi, and the evidence of good character. The court concluded that, although the evidence against the appellant was strong, it was not so compelling as to render the verdict unsafe. The court also found that the lateness of the application for an extension of time was a factor to be considered, but it was not determinative. Ultimately, the court decided that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for an extension of time. The court found that, while the evidence against the appellant was strong, it was not so compelling as to render the verdict unsafe. The court also found that the lateness of the application for an extension of time was a factor to be considered, but it was not determinative. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Orders