R v Matthews - [2018] NSWCCA 7

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Matthews [2018] NSWCCA 7
Hearing dates: 5 February 2018
Date of orders: 05 February 2018
Decision date: 07 February 2018
Before: Payne JA at [1]
Garling J at [1]
Hidden AJ at [1]
Decision:
(1)   Access to Court of Criminal Appeal file refused save with leave of a judge of the Court.

(2) Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), the Court orders that there be no publication of any information that may tend to identify the respondent in these proceedings until proceedings involving a jury have concluded in the District Court. This order is made on the ground that it is necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

(3) Application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 5F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) is granted.

(4)   Appeal allowed.

(5)   The following decisions of his Honour Maiden DCJ made on 30 January 2018 are set aside:

(a) to require the complainant to provide a further proof of evidence;

(b) to prevent the Crown from calling the complainant unless the further proof of evidence is provided;

(c) to require the complainant to give evidence on audio visual link from the precincts of the District Court in Sydney

(6)   The matter is remitted to the District Court for continuation of the trial
Note: Nothing in these orders prevents the respondent from making such further application as may be appropriate in respect of the evidence by audio visual link for any reason which may arise in the course of the trial.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – s 5F appeal – interlocutory judgment or order – whether trial judge erred in requiring Crown to provide a further statement from complainant - whether trial judge erred in requiring complainant to travel from country NSW to Sydney to give evidence via audio visual link from Sydney court complex
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AF v R [2015] NSWCCA 35
House v King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
KN v R [2017] NSWCCA 249
O’Connor v Healy (1961) 69 SR (NSW) 111
R v Steffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633
Richardson v The Queen [1974] HCA 19; 131 CLR 116
Saffron v Director of Public Prosecutions (1989) 16 NSWLR 397
Texts Cited: None
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown (Applicant)
Shane David Matthews (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
N J Adams / N Keay (Applicant)
S Goodwin (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2014/00246937
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), the Court orders that there be no publication of any information that may tend to identify the respondent in these proceedings until proceedings…

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 Matthews

Details

AGLC: R v Matthews [2018] NSWCCA 7
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 7
Decision Date: 07 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Matthews involved the appellant, Matthews, who was on trial for a serious criminal offence. The matter was heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, where the appellant sought to challenge the trial judge's decisions regarding the handling of the complainant's evidence. The central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in two specific decisions: first, in requiring the Crown to provide a further statement from the complainant; and second, in requiring the complainant to travel from a rural area in New South Wales to Sydney to give her evidence via an audio-visual link from the Sydney court complex.

The court examined the trial judge's decisions under the provisions of s 5F of the relevant criminal procedure act. The appellant contended that the trial judge had not exercised the discretion afforded by s 5F appropriately. The court considered whether the trial judge's decisions were within the bounds of his or her discretion and whether they could be seen as a substantial injustice to the appellant. The court noted that the trial judge had acted to ensure that the complainant's evidence was presented in a manner that was both fair and efficient, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, including the need for the complainant to give evidence in a way that was least traumatic for her.

After thorough consideration, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in his or her decisions. The court held that the trial judge had exercised his or her discretion appropriately, ensuring that the complainant's evidence was presented in a manner that was both fair and efficient. The court emphasised the importance of considering the welfare and circumstances of the complainant, and found that the trial judge had appropriately balanced these factors with the need to ensure a fair trial for the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial judge's decisions were upheld.

Orders