CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - conviction for armed robbery - inquiry pursuant to s 474G Crimes Act 1900 - referral to Court of Criminal Appeal (s 474H(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900) - fresh evidence - whether conviction should be quashed - miscarriage of justice - entitlement to acquittal as of right - whether new trial should be ordered - exercise of discretion not to order a new trial.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

DECISION:
Appeal upheld. Conviction quashed and a verdict of acquittal entered.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60835/2000

IPP AJA
WOOD CJ AT CL
SIMPSON J

Friday 23 March 2001

REGINA v Raymond Grant PEDRANA

JUDGMENT

IPP AJA: On 21 May 1990 the appellant was charged with one count of armed robbery contrary to s 97 of the Crimes Act 1900. He pleaded not guilty. He was convicted on 24 May 1990 after a trial. He was sentenced by Urquhart DCJ to a minimum term of imprisonment of five years and an additional term of one year and eight months. The minimum term was to commence in January 1992. The sentence was specified to expire on 8 September 1988.
The appellant appealed against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed: R v Pedrana, unreported, CCA NSW, 11 June 1992.
In April 2000 the appellant applied under s 474D of the Crimes Act for an inquiry into his conviction. On 20 October 2000, James J made an order in terms of s 474E(1) for an inquiry by a prescribed person into the conviction. That inquiry was undertaken by Graham DCJ. After conducting the inquiry his Honour referred the matter to this Court pursuant to s 474H(2)(a) for consideration of the question whether the conviction should be quashed.
The sole ground of appeal before this Court is that “there is now available fresh evidence that demonstrates the appellant’s conviction was a miscarriage of justice”. In argument, counsel for the appellant submitted, as her primary position, that the conviction should be quashed and a verdict of acquittal should be entered. In the alternative, she submitted that the conviction should be quashed and there should be an order that no new trial be held, or that there should be no order for a new trial (without a verdict of acquittal being entered). In the final alternative she submitted that the conviction be quashed and a new trial ordered.
Counsel for the appellant sought separate relief concerning other sentences imposed on the appellant for various different offences. On 15 May 1992 the appellant was…

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 Pedrana

Details

AGLC: R v Pedrana [2001] NSWCCA 66
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 66
Decision Date: 23 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pedrana brought an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction for armed robbery. The case arose from an incident where Pedrana was charged with and convicted of armed robbery in the Supreme Court. The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to consider whether the conviction should be quashed due to fresh evidence that may lead to a miscarriage of justice. A key issue was whether Pedrana was entitled to an acquittal as of right, or if a new trial should be ordered, and if so, whether the discretion to order a new trial should be exercised.

The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the fresh evidence provided by Pedrana and assessed whether it met the criteria for a potential miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether Pedrana was entitled to an acquittal as of right or if the fresh evidence warranted a new trial. The court noted that the fresh evidence did not establish a miscarriage of justice to the extent that an acquittal as of right was warranted, but it did warrant a new trial. However, the Court of Criminal Appeal exercised its discretion not to order a new trial, considering the totality of the circumstances and the nature of the fresh evidence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a fresh verdict of not guilty to be entered. The court found that the fresh evidence did not establish a miscarriage of justice to the extent that an acquittal as of right was warranted, but it did warrant a new trial. However, given the passage of time and the nature of the fresh evidence, the court exercised its discretion not to order a new trial, and instead, ordered a fresh verdict of not guilty to be entered.

Orders