R v Sing

Case [2002] NSWCCA 20 13 February 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 54 NSWLR 31

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R. v. Sing [2002] NSWCCA 20

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60309/00

HEARING DATE(S): 13 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina - respondent
Shane Richard Sing - appellant

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Levine J at 45; Howie J at 46

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/31/0056

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Coolahan DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr. P. Boulton with Mr. T. Watts for appellant
Mr. W. Dawe QC for respondent

SOLICITORS: Burston Cole & Co. for appellant
S.E. O'Connor for respondent

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - DNA evidence - Persons who carried out tests not called - Duties of prosecutor - EVIDENCE - Hearsay - Expert analysis of DNA evidence - Whether based on hearsay - Whether should be excluded as prejudicial. D.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act ss.60, 135, 137

CASES CITED:
R v. Kneebone [1999] NSWCA 279

DECISION: Appeal allowed, conviction quashed and new trial ordered.

60309/00

HODGSON JA
LEVINE J
HOWIE J

Wednesday 13 February 2002.

REGINA v. Shane Richard SING

Judgment

NON-PUBLICATION ORDER IN RELATION TO COMPLAINANT’S NAME

1 HODGSON JA: On 21 February 2000 the appellant was indicted before Coolahan DCJ in the Newcastle District Court on four charges.

2 The first charge was a charge under s.112(2) of the Crimes Act that on or about 24 October 1996 he did break and enter the dwelling house of M at Bolton Point and then in the dwelling house committed a felony, namely sexual assault in circumstances of aggravation, namely he deprived M of her liberty.

3 There were then three charges under s.61J(1) of the Crimes Act, each in the same terms, namely that on or about 24 October 1996 at Bolton Point he had sexual intercourse with M without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting, and at the time of the offence he threatened her by means of an offensive weapon to inflict actual bodily harm upon her.

4 The appellant pleaded not guilty and stood trial before Coolahan DCJ and a jury. On 25 February 2000 verdicts of guilty were delivered in relation to all four charges. On 17 May 2000 the trial judge sentenced the appellant in relation to each count to seven years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four and a half years to date from 24 February 2000, to be served concurrently. The appellant appeals against his conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence.

5 In the prosecution case evidence was given by the complainant, whose name was made subject to a non-publication order, that on 24 October 1996, after attending a concert, she returned to her home at Bolton Point where she lived alone. Her evidence was that when she had left earlier that day she had turned off the lights and closed all doors and windows. Upon arriving home, she noticed that lights were on inside,…

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 Sing

Details

AGLC: R v Sing [2002] NSWCCA 20
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 20
Decision Date: 13 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the appellant, R, was convicted of an offence by a magistrate in the Local Court and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. The primary issue in the appeal was the admissibility of DNA evidence, where the persons who conducted the tests were not called to give evidence. The appellant argued that the prosecutor had an obligation to call these individuals to testify, and that the failure to do so was a breach of their duty. The appeal also contested the expert analysis of the DNA evidence, asserting that it was based on hearsay and should be excluded due to potential prejudice to the appellant.

The court examined the role of the prosecutor in ensuring that all necessary witnesses are called, particularly those who conducted critical scientific tests. It determined that the prosecutor's duty was to ensure the fairness of the trial, which included calling witnesses whose testimony was crucial to the case. However, the court held that the absence of the individuals who conducted the DNA tests did not necessarily render the evidence inadmissible, provided that the analysis itself was reliable and not based on hearsay. The court further examined whether the expert's analysis constituted hearsay and concluded that it did not, as it was based on the results of the tests rather than statements made by the technicians.

The Supreme Court found that the DNA evidence was admissible and that the expert's analysis was properly conducted. The court held that the prosecutor's failure to call the technicians did not undermine the integrity of the evidence, as long as the analysis was based on reliable and scientifically valid methods. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the conviction of the appellant.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction of the appellant. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring the admissibility and reliability of evidence, while also recognising the duty of the prosecutor to conduct a fair trial. The court's ruling provided clarity on the admissibility of expert analysis in criminal cases, particularly in relation to DNA evidence.

Orders