R v SMR

Case [2002] NSWCCA 258 1 July 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v SMR [2002] NSWCCA 258

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60806/00

HEARING DATE(S): 28 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 July 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v SMR

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Hidden J at 2; Carruthers AJ at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/71/0070

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Her Honour Judge Latham

COUNSEL : Appellant - S.J. Odgers SC / Tanzareth
Crown - W.G. Dawe QC

SOLICITORS: Appellant - D.J. Humphreys
Crown - S.E. O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal against conviction - sexual assaults - cogency of fingerprint evidence - whether Longman direction required - whether fresh evidence by independent fingerprint expert should be admitted.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 ss 61J, 61J(1), 61L, 61N(2), 61P

CASES CITED:
Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 931
Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315
Carr v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 314
Craig v The King (1933) 49 CLR 429
Gallagher v The Queen (1985-86) 160 CLR 371
Green v The King (1939) 61 CLR 167
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Moreshead v Police [1999] SASC 162 (16/4/99)
Parker v The King (1912) 14 CLR 681
R v Baartman [2000] NSWCCA 298
R v Castleton (1909) 3 Cr App R 74
R v McIntee (1985) 38 SASR 432
R v Peel (1999) 2 Qd R 400
R v Richards [2002] NSWCCA 38
Weissensteiner v the Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

60806/00

MASON P
HIDDEN J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Monday, 1 July 2002

REGINA v SMR

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with Carruthers AJ.

2 HIDDEN J: I agree with Carruthers AJ.

3 CARRUTHERS AJ: SMR appeals against his conviction on 16 October 2000 at the Griffith District Court on five sexual offences.

4 The appellant was arraigned before her Honour Judge Latham and a jury of twelve at the Griffith District Court on 12 October 2000 upon an indictment which contained five counts. The appellant pleaded not guilty to each count and on 16 October the jury returned verdicts of guilty on each count.

5 The first count was an act of indecency towards a person above the age of sixteen years pursuant to s 61N(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (hereinafter the Act). The second count was one of indecent assault pursuant to s 61L of the Act; the third and fourth counts were attempts to have sexual intercourse without consent, in circumstances of aggravation, namely by threatening to inflict actual bodily harm upon the complainant by means of an offensive weapon pursuant to ss 61P and 61J(1) of the Act; the fifth count was one of sexual intercourse in circumstances of aggravation by threatening to inflict actual bodily harm pursuant to s 61J(1) of the Act.

6 On 11 December 2000 her Honour sentenced the appellant to a fixed term of twelve months imprisonment commencing on 16 October 2000 in relation to the…

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 SMR

Details

AGLC: R v SMR [2002] NSWCCA 258
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 258
Decision Date: 1 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v SMR, the respondent appealed against his conviction for multiple sexual assaults. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, who was convicted of several counts of sexual assault, argued that the evidence presented against him was insufficient to support a conviction. The primary contention was the reliability and cogency of fingerprint evidence which was used to link him to the crime scenes. Furthermore, the respondent asserted that a Longman direction should have been given to the jury regarding the significance of the fingerprint evidence, and that fresh evidence from an independent fingerprint expert should have been admitted.

The legal issues before the court were whether the fingerprint evidence was sufficiently cogent to support the conviction, whether a Longman direction should have been given to the jury, and whether the fresh evidence from an independent fingerprint expert should have been admitted. The court had to consider the principles surrounding the admissibility and weight of fingerprint evidence, the circumstances in which a Longman direction is appropriate, and the criteria for admitting fresh evidence at the appellate stage.

The court found that the fingerprint evidence was indeed cogent and reliable, and that it was properly admitted and weighed by the jury. The court held that a Longman direction was not required in this case, as the evidence was clear and straightforward. Additionally, the court determined that the fresh evidence from the independent fingerprint expert did not meet the criteria for admission, as it did not provide a significant new perspective or undermine the reliability of the existing evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's convictions were upheld.

No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the convictions.

Orders