Legal Research
Cases
R v Naudi

R v Naudi

Case [2003] NSWCCA 160 30 June 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Naudi [2003] NSWCCA 160 revised - 19/08/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 18 June 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Simpson J at 2; Greg James J at 56

DECISION: Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: whether information given to the Parole Board was false, misleading or irrelevant

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, s155
Sentencing Act 1989, s23

CASES CITED: McPherson v Offenders Review Board (1991) 23 NSWLR 61
LMS v Parole Board [1999] NSWCCA 371; unreported, 25 October 1999

PARTIES :
Vincent Naudi - Applicant
Parole Board of New South Wales - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60065/03

COUNSEL: Applicant in person
H Roberts - Respondent

SOLICITORS: IV Knight - Respondent

60065/03

HODGSON JA
SIMPSON J
GREG JAMES J
Monday 30 June 2003

REGINA v Vincent NAUDI

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: I agree with Simpson J.

2 SIMPSON J: This is an application pursuant to s155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. That section is in the following terms:

(2) The Court of Criminal Appeal may give such directions with respect to the information as it thinks fit.

By s157(1) an offender is not entitled to appear in person at the hearing or determination of the application, except by leave of the Court.

facts

3 The applicant was born on 28 May 1955. On 18 August 1997 he was charged on indictment with ten counts of sexual assault, one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of assault. He entered a plea of guilty to the single count of assault, and pleas of not guilty to each other charge on the indictment. After a trial a jury convicted him on each count on the indictment. On 17 October 1997, on the assault charge, he was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for six months, commencing on the day it was imposed. On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm he was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for one year. On the ten sexual assault counts he was sentenced to a minimum term of six years, with an additional term of two years, commencing on 3 February 1997.

4 All counts on the indictment related to the same victim, a young female…

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 Naudi

Details

AGLC: R v Naudi [2003] NSWCCA 160
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 160
Decision Date: 30 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Naudi, the defendant was convicted of a serious crime and was subject to a parole hearing. The issue before the court was whether certain information provided to the Parole Board during the hearing was false, misleading, or irrelevant. The decision was made by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the information provided to the Parole Board was indeed false, misleading, or irrelevant, and if so, whether this warranted a review or appeal of the parole decision. The court had to consider the standard of proof required to establish the falsity, misleading nature, or irrelevance of the information, and the impact this had on the parole decision.

The court concluded that the information provided to the Parole Board was not false, misleading, or irrelevant, and therefore did not warrant a review or appeal of the parole decision. The court held that the standard of proof required to establish these matters was high, and the evidence presented did not meet this standard. The court also noted that the Parole Board is entitled to consider all relevant information in making its decision, and the information in question was relevant to the defendant's suitability for parole. The court found that the Parole Board's decision was not affected by any alleged falsity, misleading nature, or irrelevance of the information. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the parole decision.

Orders