Legal Research
Cases
R v Reardon

R v Reardon

Case [2002] NSWCCA 203 4 June 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v. Michael Leonard REARDON Edgar Hernando MICHAELS Clifford Barry TAYLOR [2002] NSWCCA 203 revised - 20/06/2002

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60419/99; 60537/99; 60365/99

HEARING DATE(S): 25 October 2001 and 5 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina - respondent
Michael Leonard Reardon - appellant (60419/99)
Edgar Hernando Michaels - appellant (60357/99)
Clifford Barry Taylor - appellant (60365/99)

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Simpson J at 41; Barr J at 222

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0872; 98/11/0269

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ainslie-Wallace, DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr. S. Corish for Michaels
Mr. P. Byrne SC for Taylor
Mr. M. Ramage QC for Reardon
Mr. P. Roberts SC for Crown

SOLICITORS: D.J. Humphries, Legal aid Commission, for Reardon
Horowitz & Bilinsky for Taylor
Mark Klees & Associates for Michaels
Commonwealth DPP for Crown

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Juries - Discharge of juror - Whether lawful in absence of jury - Continuing with eleven jurors - Whether discretion miscarried - CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - Leave to cross-examine own witness - Requirements of Evidence Act ss.38 and 192 - Whether express consideration necessary - CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - Warnings - Unreliability of witness - Prejudicial evidence - Discretion to exclude or limit - Fresh evidence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act 1904
Listening Devices Act 1984
Legal Aid Commission Act 1979
Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
Grey v The Queen [2001] HCA 65
Mickelberg v R (1989) 167 CLR 259
R v Dellapatrona and Duffield (1993) 31 NSWLR 123
R v Drazkiewicz NSWCCA 12/11/93
R v Edwards (1997) 90 ACrimR 516
R v Esho [2001] NSWCA 415
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 ACrimR 231
R v Irusta [2000] NSWCCA 391
R v Kalpaxis [2001] NSWCCA 119
R V Paull (1999) NSWLR 427
R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161; 2 A Crim R 45
R v Radju [2001] NSWCCA 103
R v Savvas (No.2) (1991) 58 ACrimR 174
R v Tack Lee Pang (1999) 105 ACrimR 474
R v Taouk (1992) 65 ACrimR 387
R v Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 219
Stanoevski v The Queen [2001] HCA 4; 75 ALJR 454
The Queen v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32
Wu v R [1999] HCA 52; 199 CLR 99

DECISION: All appeals against conviction dismissed. Grant leave to the applicant Reardon to appeal against his sentence and allow the appeal. Quash the non-parole period and fix in lieu a non-parole period of twelve years, which will expire on 22 April 2011. Declare that Reardon will be eligible for release to parole on that day. Grant leave to the applicant Michaels to appeal against his sentence and allow the appeal. Quash the sentence and impose in lieu a sentence of eighteen years' imprisonment commencing on 21 November 1997 and expiring on 20 November 2015. Fix a non-parole period of thirteen years which will expire on 20 November 2010.…

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 Reardon

Details

AGLC: R v Reardon [2002] NSWCCA 203
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 203
Decision Date: 4 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Reardon, the defendant was charged with various criminal offences and faced trial before a jury in the County Court of Victoria. The trial faced several issues, including the discharge of a juror and the admissibility of certain evidence. The court was required to determine whether the jury could continue with eleven members, whether the defendant's right to cross-examine his own witness was properly exercised, and the appropriateness of various warnings given to the jury regarding the evidence presented. The case was ultimately appealed to the Court of Appeal, where the decisions made during the trial were scrutinized.

The court considered whether the discharge of a juror was lawful and if the jury could continue with eleven members. It also examined whether the trial judge's discretion to allow the jury to proceed with eleven jurors was misapplied. Regarding the cross-examination of the defendant's own witness, the court assessed whether the requirements of the Evidence Act sections 38 and 192 were met, specifically whether express consideration of the defendant's request was necessary. Additionally, the court looked into the trial judge's discretion to provide warnings about the unreliability of a witness, prejudicial evidence, and the decision to exclude or limit fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not misapply his discretion in allowing the jury to continue with eleven members. The court also concluded that the defendant's right to cross-examine his own witness was not improperly exercised, as the trial judge had considered the relevant factors under the Evidence Act. In terms of the warnings given to the jury, the court held that the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately, taking into account the unreliability of a witness and the potential for prejudicial evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the trial court's decisions.

Orders