R v Stevens - [2001] NSWCCA 330

CITATION: R v Stevens [2001] NSWCCA 330

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60120/99

HEARING DATE(S): 26 June 2001 and 16 November 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 November 2001

PARTIES :

Russell John Stevens - Appellant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1 and 82; Simpson J at 2; Smart AJ at 83

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/1050

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Tupman DCJ

COUNSEL :
26 June 2001
R D Ellis - Crown
Appellant in person
16 November 2001
R A Hulme - Crown
H Dhanji - Appellant

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor - Crown
S E O'Connor - Crown
Glenn K Walsh - Appellant

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal aganst conviction and severity of sentence - maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm - whether conviction unreasonable having regard ot the evidence - whether witness "coached".

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Stanoevski v the Queen [2001] HCA 4; 202 CLR 115

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

-IN THE SUPREME COURT

60120/99

SPIGELMAN CJ
SIMPSON J
SMART AJ

16 November 2001

REGINA v Russell John STEVENS

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I will ask Justice Simpson to deliver the first judgment.

2 SIMPSON J: On 10 February 1999, following a trial by jury in the District Court, the appellant was convicted on a charge of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. On 18 March 1999 Judge Tupman sentenced the appellant for that offence, and also for an offence of supplying a prohibited drug (25.53 grams of methylamphetamine), to which the appellant had earlier pleaded guilty. The two offences were quite unrelated.

3 On the drug charge, which carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $220,000, Judge Tupman imposed a fixed term of nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 3 February 1999. In doing so, she took into account, pursuant to s 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, a charge of possession of a prohibited drug (8.1 grams of cannabis leaf).

4 For the offence of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, Judge Tupman sentenced the appellant to a cumulative term of penal servitude for five years, divided into equal minimum and additional terms of two and a half years.

5 The appellant appeals against the conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentences. The appeal was listed for hearing on 26 June of this year. On that day, the appellant appeared unrepresented in this Court. He provided written grounds of appeal, which are set out below.

6 The trial began on 3 February 1999 and concluded with the jury verdict of guilty on 10 February 1999. For reasons that cannot satisfactorily be explained, the transcription tapes of the evidence of virtually the whole of the prosecution case and much of the defence case cannot be found. What survives is a tape recording of part…

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 Stevens

Details

AGLC: R v Stevens [2001] NSWCCA 330
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 330
Decision Date: 16 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stevens involved the appellant, Stevens, who was convicted of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. Stevens appealed against both his conviction and the severity of his sentence. The appeal was heard in the appellate court, which reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the conviction was unreasonable given the evidence, and whether a witness had been coached. The court had to determine if the witness's testimony was reliable and whether it was tainted by any coaching that might have influenced the outcome of the trial.

The appellate court meticulously examined the evidence presented during the trial, focusing on the credibility and reliability of the witness's testimony. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that there was no evidence to suggest that the witness had been coached. The court concluded that the conviction was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal against the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the severity was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the harm caused. The appeal against the severity of the sentence was also dismissed.

The appellate court confirmed Stevens' conviction and sentence, upholding the decision of the lower court. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders