Legal Research
Cases
R v Taylor

R v Taylor

Case [2003] NSWCCA 194 7 November 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Michael TAYLOR [2003] NSWCCA 194

HEARING DATE(S): 7/7/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 November 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Bell J at 2; Miles AJ at 183

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed; Grant leave to appeal against the sentence, but dismiss the appeal

CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE - unfavourable witness - whether leave should be granted pursuant to s 38 of the Evidence Act in a case in which the witness does not recall the circumstances of making a statement to the police. EVIDENCE - admissibility of solicitor's file note containing instructions from a client as a business record under s 69(2) of the Evidence Act - The exercise of the s 135 discretion to exclude evidence tendered on behalf of an accused in criminal proceedings. CRIMINAL LAW- when proceedings for an offence are instituted for the purposes of the Crimes Self-Defence Amendment Act 2001. Whether re-arraignment on an indictment in all material respects the same as an earlier indictment amounts to the substitution of an indictment for s 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Amendment Self-Defence Act 2001 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules 1952
Criminal Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96
M v The Queen (1984) 181 CLR 487
Mackay v The Queen (1977) 136 CLR 465
Papakosmas v the Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297
Power v The Queen (1973) 131 CLR 623
Regina v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442
Regina v Fowler [2000] NSWCCA 142
Regina v Glasby (2000) 115 A Crim R 465
R v Howard (1992) 29 NSWLR 242
R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 547
Regina v Kneebone [1999] 47 NSWLR 450
Regina v Lozano (unreported) NSWCCA, 10 June 1997
R v Sepulveda [2003] NSWCCA 131
Regina v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
Regina v Souleyman (1996) 40 NSWLR 712
Regina v Yates [2002] NSWCCA 520
Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645

PARTIES :
Michael Taylor (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60098/03

COUNSEL: G Nicholson QC (Appellant)
R Hulme SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: DJ Humphreys (Appellant)
SE O'Connor (Respondent)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70074/01

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Whealy J

60098/03

SPIGELMAN CJ
BELL J
MILES AJ
Friday 7 November 2003

REGINA v Michael James TAYLOR

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Bell J.
2 BELL J: On 25 March 2002 the appellant was arraigned before Whealy J (the Judge) on an indictment that charged him with the murder of Adam Scott at Prospect on 25 July 2000. He pleaded that he was not guilty. A jury was empanelled and he stood trial. On 9 May 2002 the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
3 The proceedings were adjourned to allow the appellant to lead evidence on sentence. On 21 November 2002 the appellant was sentenced to…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2003] NSWCCA 194
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 194
Decision Date: 7 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus Taylor, the defendant faced trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria on charges related to drug possession and supply. The prosecution sought to introduce a statement made by the defendant to the police, but the defendant objected to the statement on the basis that the witness, a police officer, did not recall the circumstances of the statement. The defendant applied for leave under section 38 of the Evidence Act to have the statement admitted despite the witness's lack of recollection. The court was required to determine whether the leave should be granted.

The court considered whether the statutory criteria under section 38 of the Evidence Act were satisfied. The criteria included whether the evidence was relevant and whether the absence of the witness's recollection would result in injustice. The court noted that while the witness's lack of recollection was a factor, the probative value of the statement and the absence of prejudice to the defendant outweighed the issue. The court granted leave for the statement to be admitted.

The court also examined the admissibility of a solicitor's file note under section 69(2) of the Evidence Act. The prosecution argued that the note, which contained instructions from the defendant, qualified as a business record. The defence objected, arguing that the note should be excluded under section 135 of the Evidence Act as it was tendered by the prosecution. The court determined that the note was indeed a business record and could be admitted. However, the court exercised its discretion under section 135 to exclude the note due to the potential for prejudice to the defendant.

The court further addressed the issue of whether re-arraignment on an indictment in all material respects the same as an earlier indictment amounted to the substitution of an indictment for the purposes of section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The court found that the re-arraignment did not constitute a substitution of an indictment, thereby allowing the case to proceed under the new indictment.

Orders