R v Piper - [2005] NSWCCA 134

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v TONIA PIPER [2005] NSWCCA 134

FILE NUMBER(S):
No. 394 of 2005

HEARING DATE(S): 07/04/2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 07/04/2005

PARTIES:
REGINA v TONIA PIPER

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ Studdert J Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hosking DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown-D.Frearson SC, J.Girdham
Respondent-R.Hulme SC, H.Allan

SOLICITORS:

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - interlocutory appeal by Crown - challenge to ruling on admissibility - not a judgment or order - appeal incompetent.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, 1990
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINALAPPEAL

No. 394 of 2005

SPIGELMAN CJ
STUDDERT, J.
GREG JAMES, J.

THURSDAY 7 APRIL2005
REGINAv TONIA PIPER

JUDGMENT

SPIGELMAN CJ:I invite Greg James J to deliver the first judgment.

GREG JAMES J: Relying upon s 5F (2), the Director of Public Prosecutions seeks to appeal against what is asserted to be an interlocutory judgment or order given or made in proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales during a trial by judge alone of the respondent on an indictment containing one count that she drove dangerously, causing the death of Ms Fallow and on another count that she, by driving dangerously caused grievous bodily harm to Carl Wong.

The learned trial judge embarked upon a voir dire, notwithstanding that he was sitting as a judge alone, on the admissibility of evidence sought to be tendered by the defence, which evidence in particular, so it was said, was tendered to support a defence of mental illness, the defence referred to in s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, 1990. His Honour considered the Crown's objection that the evidence was irrelevant to a charge of the kind faced by the respondent since that offence, so it was asserted, was an offence of "strict liability", that is to say, it was an offence in which there was no active fault element to be proved by the Crown as existing in the mind of respondent at the time of the commission of the acts or omissions causing the death and the injury asserted i.e. a specific intent.

His Honour in an extensive judgment examined the question of whether the defence of mental illness might apply to such offences. He expressed his views of the task he was undertaking at page 2 of that judgment:
"At this stage I am simply determining the admissibility of certain psychiatric evidence following the giving of that evidence on the voir dire. This issue of admissibility arises because the Crown contends that the evidence is not relevant to any issue in the trial and is therefore inadmissible."
Reference was made throughout the judgment to the Crown's contention that the defence is not available in respect of such offences. At page 3 in his Honour's judgment appears the following:
“In these circumstances the Crown says that what I will refer to, for short, as…

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 Piper

Details

AGLC: R v Piper [2005] NSWCCA 134
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 134
Decision Date: 7 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Piper involved an interlocutory appeal by the Crown, seeking to challenge a ruling made by the trial judge regarding the admissibility of certain evidence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred around whether the appeal was competent, given that it pertained to an interlocutory ruling rather than a final judgment or order.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Crown could appeal an interlocutory ruling on admissibility and, if so, what the criteria for such an appeal would be. The court needed to determine if an interlocutory appeal was permissible under the circumstances and whether it was appropriate to allow the appeal despite the lack of a final judgment or order.

The court concluded that an interlocutory appeal challenging a ruling on admissibility was not a judgment or order, and thus, the appeal was incompetent. The court held that interlocutory appeals are generally not allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances, and in this case, no such circumstances were present. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial judge's ruling on admissibility remained in place. The court emphasised that the appeal process is not intended to circumvent the final determination of a case and that interlocutory rulings do not constitute final judgments or orders unless explicitly stated.

Orders