R v Reid

Case [1999] NSWCCA 258 25 August 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60620/98

HEARING DATE(S): 25 May 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 August 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Stephen John Reid

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Greg James J at 11; Smart AJ at 12

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/11/0547

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Naughton DCJ

COUNSEL: Appellant: R Burgess
Respondent: P G Berman

SOLICITORS: Appellant: T A Murphy
Respondent: C K Smith

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law; Incorrect refusal of adjournment to locate witness Crown intended calling; Correct construction of s424A of Crimes Act

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act, 1900
Evidence (Consequential & Other Provisions)
Act 1995
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
R v Horton, CCA unreported, 2 November 1998
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 67

DECISION: Appeal allowed conviction quashed; New trial ordered

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60620/98

SPIGELMAN CJ
GREG JAMES J
SMART AJ

Wednesday, 23 August 1999

REGINA v Stephen John REID
HEADNOTE

R was convicted of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent. The victim was behaving very aggressively and threatened and assaulted another man. R contended that the victim threatened to kill or seriously harm him. R armed himself with a golf club and struck the victim a number of times. The victim suffered serious injuries. The issue at the trial was whether the Crown had negatived that the accused had used no more force than was reasonably necessary.

F provided substantial support for R. The Crown had intended to call F but did not advise the accused until the morning of the trial that it had been unable to locate F and proposed to proceed without him. The judge refused to grant the accused an adjournment so he could have the opportunity to locate F.

HELD: The judge had erroneously exercised his discretion and applied the wrong test.

During the trial the Crown led evidence of statements made by R to the investigating police which included lies on material matters. Although an ERISP was held later R was never asked about these.

R's counsel at trial did not object to evidence being led as to the lies because she overlooked s424A of the Crimes Act. The Crown relied on the lies as evidencing a consciousness of guilt.

HELD: (1) Applying R v Horton, CCA, unrep. 2 November 1998 the lies were admissions within s424A of the Crimes Act, 1900.

(2) The words "not admissible" in the clause "Evidence of an admission is not admissible unless" in s424A(2) should be construed as meaning "not admissible over objection".

ORDERS: Appeal allowed; conviction quashed, new trial ordered.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60620/98

SPIGELMAN CJ
GREG JAMES J
SMART AJ
Wednesday 25 August 1999

REGINA v Stephen John REID

JUDGMENT

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Smart AJ in draft. I adopt his Honour’s outline of the circumstances of the alleged offence. For the reasons his Honour gives the appeal must…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 258
Decision Date: 25 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Reid came before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the respondent, Reid, was charged with various criminal offences. The dispute centred around the trial judge's refusal to adjourn the trial to allow for the attendance of a key witness intended to be called by the Crown. Reid argued that the adjournment should have been granted in accordance with section 424A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion under the provision and that the witness's evidence was not critical to the outcome of the trial.

The central legal issue the court had to resolve was the interpretation and application of section 424A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), which deals with the refusal of an adjournment when the Crown intends to call a witness who is unable to attend. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the trial judge's refusal to adjourn was correct, and if the witness's evidence was indeed crucial to the Crown's case. The court also needed to examine whether the trial judge had considered all relevant factors in deciding whether to grant the adjournment.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, found that the trial judge had erred in his construction of section 424A of the Crimes Act. The court held that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the importance of the witness's evidence, and had failed to consider all relevant factors before deciding to refuse the adjournment. The court further held that the witness's evidence was indeed crucial to the Crown's case, and that the trial judge's refusal to adjourn had prejudiced the respondent's right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.

In its final orders, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial of the respondent, Reid. The court emphasised the importance of correctly interpreting and applying section 424A of the Crimes Act, and highlighted the need for trial judges to carefully consider all relevant factors when deciding whether to grant an adjournment. The court also underscored the significance of ensuring a fair trial for all parties involved in criminal proceedings.

Orders