Legal Research
Cases
R v Player

R v Player

Case [2000] NSWCCA 123 12 April 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Player [2000] NSWCCA 123

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60607/99

HEARING DATE(S): 12 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 April 2000

PARTIES :

Regina (Respondent)
Adam PLAYER (Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 20; at 24; Smart AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/22/0285

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Naughton DCJ

COUNSEL : CM Cook (Appellant)
MC Marien (Crown Respondent)

SOLICITORS: JS Fordham (Appellant)
SE O'Connor (Crown Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE - later events closely related in time and place to alleged offence - not propensity evidence but admissible as going to appellant's state of mind.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s 97

CASES CITED:
Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292
Pfennig v R (1994-95) 182 CLR 461
R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510
O'Leary v R (1946) 73 CLR 566
R v Adam [1999] NSWCCA 189

DECISION: See paragraphs 18 and 19

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No 60607/99
PRIESTLEY JA
FOSTER AJA
SMART AJ
Wednesday, 12 April, 2000

REGINA -V- ADAM PLAYER

JUDGMENT
1    PRIESTLEY JA: Justice Smart will give the first reasons of the Court.
2    SMART AJ This stated case concerns the admissibility of certain evidence tendered by the Crown in a prosecution arising out of events that occurred in the early hours of 8 June 1996.
3 The accused was charged pursuant to s. 195(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 with maliciously damaging property belonging to another, namely, a shop window at The Fruit Market in Rawson Street, Epping. The Crown alleged that while in a drunken and aggressive state the appellant smashed a glass fruit shop window of The Epping Fruit Market. The Crown case was a circumstantial one.
4    Naughton DCJ was satisfied of the following beyond reasonable doubt:

(i) Early on 8 June 1996 a glass window in the Epping Fruit Market was broken. The market was located in an arcade that ran between Rawson Street and Beecroft Road, Epping.

(ii) Two Crown witnesses who worked at the Epping Hotel as security guards heard the sound of breaking glass and went to Rawson Street. Some minutes later they saw the appellant walking across Rawson Street near the entrance to the arcade.
(iii) The appellant was in an aggressive state. He was seen kicking over a bin in Rawson Street and then walking some distance to the corner of Bridge and Rawson Streets where he kicked and slashed or karate chopped a "for sale" sign. He was next seen walking around the corner into Bridge Street and kicking another bin. When one of the witnesses asked the appellant why he had kicked the "for sale" sign, he replied, "what for sale sign?" One of the witnesses observed the appellant to be intoxicated.

(It is the material in this subparagraph whose admissibility is challenged.)

(iv) It is about 92 metres from the arcade to the corner of Bridge and Rawson Streets.

(v) Shortly after the appellant was seen by the security guards a number of…

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 Player

Details

AGLC: R v Player [2000] NSWCCA 123
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 123
Decision Date: 12 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Player was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Player, was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The alleged offence took place in a public place, and the victim sustained injuries that required medical attention. The case hinged on the admissibility of certain evidence that was presented by the prosecution after the alleged offence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of later events, which were closely related in time and place to the alleged offence, was admissible as propensity evidence or whether it was admissible for another reason, such as to demonstrate the appellant's state of mind. The appellant argued that the evidence should not be admitted as it was merely propensity evidence, which is generally not admissible in criminal trials. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the evidence was relevant to show the appellant's state of mind at the time of the alleged offence.

The court held that the evidence was not being offered to prove the appellant's propensity to commit the offence, but rather to show his state of mind at the time of the alleged offence. The court found that the evidence was closely related in time and place to the alleged offence, and therefore was relevant to demonstrate the appellant's state of mind. The court further held that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudice to the appellant. As a result, the evidence was admissible, and the appellant's conviction was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were affirmed. The court did not grant any relief to the appellant and upheld the decision of the lower court. The appellant was required to serve the sentence imposed by the lower court, which included a term of imprisonment and a fine.

Orders