R v Smith - [2000] NSWCCA 388

Reported Decision: 116 A Crim R 1

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 388

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60767/1998

HEARING DATE(S): 3 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Craig Anthony Smith

JUDGMENT OF: Foster AJA at 1; Dunford J at 2; Smart AJ at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0358

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Patten DCJ

COUNSEL : SJ Odgers
CK Maxwell QC

SOLICITORS: Trevor Nyman & Associates
SE O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - inconsistent accounts given by appellant & directions - fresh evidence - evidence of psychologist on matters of common experience - operation of Evidence Act 1995 - directions as to identification evidence

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Smith v The Queen (1990) 64 ALJR 588
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510
Lawless v The Queen (1979-80) 142 CLR 659
Gallagher v The Queen (1985-86) 160 CLR 392
Mickelberg v The Queen (1988-89) 167 CLR 259
R v Murray CCA, unreported, 11 September 1998
Domican v The Queen (1991-92) 173 CLR 555

DECISION: Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60767/1998

FOSTER AJA
DUNFORD J
SMART AJ
Friday, 6 October 2000

REGINA v Craig Anthony SMITH

1 FOSTER AJA: I agree with Smart AJ. 2 DUNFORD J: I agree with Smart AJ. 3 SMART AJ: Argument in this appeal concluded on 3 May 2000. The members of the Court considered the matter and on 10 May 2000 announced that the appeal should be dismissed. The Order of the Court was “Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed. Reasons to be published at a later date.” I give my reasons for joining in that order. 4 Craig Anthony Smith appeals against his conviction of on 14 February 1998 at Leichhardt being then armed with an offensive weapon, namely, a knife, he did rob PB of certain property. The principal issue at the trial was identification. The appellant denied involvement in the alleged offence and put forward an alibi which was rejected by the jury. He was sentenced to a minimum term of 2 years penal servitude starting on 2 December 1998 and an additional term of 3 years. 5 The appellant complained that the Summing Up was deficient in that it contained no direction as to how the jury should deal with the inconsistent accounts given by him as to his activities on the night of the robbery, that the absence of certain fresh evidence at the trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice and that the judge erred in his directions as to identification evidence. 6 PB, the complainant was walking along Marion Street, Leichhardt about 8.30pm on Saturday, 14 February 1998. As she approached Cromwell Street a person’s back appeared in front of her and she thought that it was someone putting out their garbage. As he looked a nice, friendly sort of person, she smiled…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 388
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 388
Decision Date: 10 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Smith, was convicted of robbery and assault. The Crown's case relied on the identification of the appellant by two witnesses, both of whom provided conflicting accounts of the events in question. The appellant claimed that the identifications were unreliable and that the trial judge had not properly directed the jury on the issue of identification. The appeal was focused on the admissibility of fresh evidence, the reliance on expert psychological evidence concerning witness reliability, and the application of the Evidence Act 1995.

The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility and weight to be given to fresh evidence provided by the appellant after the trial. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in not allowing the fresh evidence, which included statements from additional witnesses and expert psychological evidence regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony. The Crown contended that the fresh evidence was inadmissible as it was not available at the time of the trial and that the expert evidence was not necessary as the matters in question were of common experience.

The High Court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding the fresh evidence. The Court found that the evidence was not available at the time of the trial and that admitting it would have been unfair to the Crown. Regarding the expert psychological evidence, the Court held that the matters of witness reliability and identification were of common experience and did not require expert testimony. The Court further held that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the issue of identification, taking into account the conflicting accounts and the reliability of the identification evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The High Court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to the rules of evidence and the need for careful consideration of expert evidence in criminal trials. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Orders