Legal Research
Cases
R v Martin

R v Martin

Case [2000] NSWCCA 332 25 August 2000

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Counsel's Incompetence

Sexual Assault

Mistaken Identity

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Martin [2000] NSWCCA 332

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60681/98

HEARING DATE(S): 26 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 August 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA
(Crown)
v
SHAYNE WALTER MARTIN
(Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF: Fitzgerald JA at 1; Smart AJ at 12; Ireland AJ at 15

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 91/51/0175

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ducker DCJ

COUNSEL : A: Unrepresented
C: Mr P G Berman

SOLICITORS: A: In person
C: S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law & Procedure - appeal against conviction - sexual assault - mistaken identity by victim - "withheld" evidence - counsel's incompetence - tendency rule or coincidence rule - significant probative value

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 61I
Evidence Act 1995, ss 97, 98, 101

CASES CITED:
Zaknic Pty Ltd v Svelte Corporation Pty Ltd (1995) 61 FCR 171
Perry v The Queen (1982) 150 CLR 580
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461
Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292
R v Lockyer (1996) 89 ACrimR 457
R v Player [2000] NSWCCA 123

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60681/98

FITZGERALD JA
SMART AJ
IRELAND AJ

Friday, 25 August 2000

REGINA v SHAYNE WALTER MARTIN

JUDGMENT

1    FITZGERALD JA: The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are set out in the reasons for judgment of Ireland AJ.
2    The only matter which I find it necessary to discuss concerns the evidence of Ms M which was, as the prosecution no doubt intended, highly prejudicial to the appellant. It helped to present him to the jury, correctly if Ms M and the complainant told the truth, as a menace to women. The sentence which he received for the offences of which he was convicted was extraordinarily lenient.
3    Each of the 3 offences with which the appellant was charged involved 2 elements, namely (a) penetration of the complainant’s genitalia (b) without her consent to the appellant doing so. The prosecution accepted that, in the circumstances, it was required to prove not only that the complainant did not consent but that the appellant did not believe that she was consenting. It was sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the appellant did not care whether the complainant consented, or knew that she might not be consenting, to him penetrating her genitalia in the ways which he did.
4    The complainant’s evidence was that, after earlier staring at her and her boyfriend as they lay on her bed, subsequently approaching the complainant at a social function and then an hotel, and later approaching her from behind and hugging her, the appellant entered her bed while she was asleep. She awoke to find the appellant (who she thought was her boyfriend) in the middle of her bed rubbing her upper thigh. Increased sexual activity followed, including acts of penetration with the appellant’s finger, then tongue, then penis. The complainant then became aware that the person engaging in such activity was not her boyfriend and ordered the…

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 [2000] NSWCCA 332
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 332
Decision Date: 25 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Martin, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault by a jury in the County Court of Victoria. The victim claimed that the defendant had assaulted her in a public place. Martin appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the jury should have been directed to consider the possibility of mistaken identity and the incompetence of the trial counsel. The prosecution presented evidence that was withheld from the jury, which Martin argued should have been disclosed under the tendency rule or coincidence rule. Martin also argued that the withheld evidence had significant probative value.

The court considered whether the jury should have been directed to consider the possibility of mistaken identity. It was noted that the victim had only seen the defendant for a brief period in poor lighting conditions. The court concluded that the trial judge was correct not to direct the jury on mistaken identity, as it was not a reasonable possibility that could be raised by the evidence. The court also considered the argument that the trial counsel's incompetence amounted to a breach of Martin's right to a fair trial. The court found that the trial counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of competence. Finally, the court considered whether the withheld evidence should have been disclosed under the tendency or coincidence rule. The court found that the evidence did not have significant probative value and therefore did not need to be disclosed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court noted that the jury was properly directed on the essential elements of the offence, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the withheld evidence did not have significant probative value and therefore did not need to be disclosed. The final order of the court was that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction be upheld.

Orders