R v P

Case [2004] NSWCCA 218 30 June 2004

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v P [2004] NSWCCA 218 revised - 11/11/2004

FILE NUMBER(S):
60236/04

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 28 June 2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 30/06/2004

PARTIES:
Regina
CP

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA Hulme J Hislop J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0634

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Urquhart DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: G Rowling
Applicant: J Stratton SC

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S Kavanagh
Applicant: S O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
See paragraph 55

JUDGMENT:

- 17 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60236/04
IPP JA
HULME J
HISLOP J

Wednesday 30 June 2004

R v P

Judgment

IPP JA: I agree with Hulme J.
HULME J: On 27 February 2004 Judge Urquhart sentenced the abovenamed Applicant in respect of two offences. The first was that on 27 March 2003 at Rozelle, while armed with offensive weapons, namely a meat cleaver and baseball bat he robbed Oliver Cowdrey of a wallet and its contents and immediately after the robbery wounded Mr Cowdrey. In respect of this offence the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 6 years commencing on 27 March 2003 together with a further term of 5 years.
The second offence was that on 27 March 2003 at Paddington being armed with offensive weapons, namely a meat cleaver and a baseball bat the Applicant robbed Jason Marlatt of a watch and a wallet and its contents. In respect of this offence the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 3 years also commencing on 27 March 2003 together with a further term of 3 years. His Honour directed that the term of each sentence be served in a detention centre until the Applicant attained the age of 19 years and 2 months, an event which will occur on 7 July 2004.
The first of these offences arises under s98 of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. The second arises under s97(1) of that Act and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years.
In imposing the sentence on the first of these offences, Judge Urquhart took into account three further offences. Two were of armed robbery contrary to s97(1) of the Crimes Act. The victims were with Mr Cowdrey at the time he was robbed and in each case the property stolen was a wallet and its contents. The third offence on the Form 1 was also contrary to s97(1) of the Crimes Act and was of assault with intent to rob whilst armed. The victim of this offence was with Mr Marlatt when the latter was robbed.
The circumstances of the offences were:-
At about 8.30pm, Mr Cowdrey and two other victims were in the street when approached by the Applicant and two co-offenders Messrs JAN and Tobar. Mr JAN was armed with a baseball bat and the Applicant with a meat cleaver. The Applicant approached Mr Cowdrey, placed him in a headlock and pushed 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 P

Details

AGLC: R v P [2004] NSWCCA 218
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 218
Decision Date: 30 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v P, the defendant was convicted of various charges relating to sexual offences. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider the appeal against the conviction and sentence. The appeal centred on the legal principles governing the admissibility of certain evidence and the application of those principles in the context of the specific facts of this case. The defendant argued that certain evidence had been improperly admitted, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law in admitting the evidence and whether the error, if any, was sufficiently significant to warrant a new trial.

The High Court examined the legal framework for the admissibility of evidence, particularly focusing on the relevance and prejudicial effect of the evidence in question. It considered whether the trial judge had properly balanced these factors in accordance with established legal principles. The court also reviewed the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the evidence and its impact on the jury's decision-making process. The High Court assessed whether the admission of the evidence was a fundamental error that undermined the fairness of the trial. Ultimately, the court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal standards, and the evidence was properly admitted.

Having reviewed the evidence and the application of legal principles, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The court determined that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence, and there was no basis for a new trial. The High Court's decision affirmed the importance of ensuring that evidence is both relevant and not unduly prejudicial, while also emphasising the trial judge's role in balancing these considerations. The appeal was dismissed, and the defendant's conviction and sentence remained in place.

Orders