R v Robinson - [1999] NSWCCA 186

CITATION: R v ROBINSON [1999] NSWCCA 186

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60588/98

HEARING DATE(S): 24 June 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 July 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v James Allan ROBINSON

JUDGMENT OF: Abadee J at 1; Ireland J at 2; Barr J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Robson DCJ

COUNSEL:
RA Hulme
(Crown)
T Molomby
(Appellant)

SOLICITORS:
CK Smith
(Crown)
TA Murphy
(Appellant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - appeal - fresh evidence - whether evidence cogent

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act s 330, s 474B, s 474C(1), (2)
Evidence Act s 102, s 103(1), 106(e)
Independent Commission Against Corruption Act s 87

CASES CITED:
Regina v Pederick, Court of Criminal Appeal 21.5.97 unrep
Regina v Pohl, Court of Criminal Appeal 17.12.93 unrep
Regina v Rendell, Court of Criminal Appeal 22.6.94 unrep
Regina v O'Connor (1995) 80 A Crim R 214
Regina v Kevin Craig Hastings, Court of Criminal Appeal 29.9.97 unrep
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
Regina v Richard George Miller, Court of Criminal Appeal, 3.5.96 unrep
Regina v Mustafa Marsala, Court of Criminal Appeal, 31.5.96 unrep
Regina v Dean McLaren, Court of Criminal Appeal 22.10.96 unrep
Regina v Geza Vastag, Court of Criminal Appeal 20.6.97 unrep
Regina v John Leslie Baartman, Court of Criminal Appeal 30.6.97 unrep
Regina v Peter Franks, Court of Criminal Appeal 11.12.97 unrep
Regina v Christopher Hasenkamp, Court of Criminal Appeal 24.2.98 unrep

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT

OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60588/98

ABADEE J
IRELAND J
BARR J

WEDNESDAY 14 July 1999

REGINA V James Allan ROBINSON

JUDGMENT

1 ABADEE J: I agree with the reasons of Barr J and the orders he proposes.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60588/98
ABADEE J
IRELAND J
BARR J
Wednesday, 14 July, 1999

REGINA -v- James Allan ROBINSON
JUDGMENT

2 IRELAND J: I agree with Barr J and with the order proposed.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60588/98

ABADEE J
IRELAND J
BARR J
Wednesday, 14 July 1999

REGINA v James Allan ROBINSON

JUDGMENT

3 BARR J: This is a reference by the Attorney General under Pt 13A Crimes Act. On 18 August 1972 the appellant James Allan Robinson was convicted by a Sydney Quarter Sessions jury of assault while being armed with intent to rob and malicious wounding with intent to prevent his lawful apprehension. Judge Robson sentenced him to fourteen years’ penal servitude on the first count and eight years’ penal servitude on the second. The appellant appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his convictions. His appeal was dismissed on 26 April 1973.
4 The appellant petitioned the Governor under the provisions of s 474B Crimes Act for a review of his convictions. A number of things may happen after such a petition has been considered. One of them is that the Attorney General may refer the whole case to this Court to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [1999] NSWCCA 186
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 186
Decision Date: 14 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Robinson, the appellant was convicted of several counts of indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse. The matter came before the High Court of Australia on appeal, with the appellant contending that fresh evidence had come to light which, if accepted, would have provided a cogent explanation for the complainant's allegations and thereby warranted a fresh trial. The central issue before the court was whether the fresh evidence was indeed cogent and whether it was sufficient to justify a new trial in light of the existing evidence against the appellant.

The court began by examining the nature and cogency of the fresh evidence presented. It noted that the fresh evidence was largely based on statements from individuals who had not testified at the original trial and whose credibility was not subject to cross-examination. The court emphasised the importance of the trial process, where witnesses are subject to scrutiny and the reliability of their evidence is assessed in real-time. Given that the fresh evidence was not subjected to this rigorous process, the court found it difficult to accept the evidence as cogent. Furthermore, the court considered the weight of the existing evidence against the appellant, including the complainant's consistent and detailed account of the assaults. The court concluded that the fresh evidence did not undermine the conviction to the extent that a new trial was warranted.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal. The appellant's conviction was upheld, and the court reiterated the principle that fresh evidence should only lead to a new trial if it is of such a nature that it might reasonably be believed to have produced a different outcome. The court found that the fresh evidence in this case did not meet this standard. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was affirmed.

Orders