Legal Research
Cases
R v Teasdale

R v Teasdale

Case [2004] NSWCCA 91 16 April 2004

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Jury Verdict

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
145 A Crim R 345

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Teasdale [2004] NSWCCA 91

HEARING DATE(S): 15 March 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 April 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; Adams J at 54; Smart AJ at 55

DECISION: 1. Appeal upheld; 2. Conviction and sentence quashed; 3. Verdict and judgment of acquittal entered

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - closing address to jury - where Crown invites jury to disbelieve witness evidence when no basis for making invitation - where no cross-examination of the witnesses the jury was invited to disbelieve - trial judge's duty to direct jury to ignore unsubstantiated and improper assertions - whether trial miscarried - s8(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) - whether order for new trial appropriate - EVIDENCE - inviting jury to disbelieve witness's evidence with no basis for making invitation - no cross-examination of the witnesses the jury invited to disbelieve - s38 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). - APPEAL - jury verdict - whether jury ought to have entertained reasonable doubt - whether unsafe or unsatisfactory verdict - whether evidence contained discrepancies or lacked probative force - whether significant possibility that innocent person convicted - s6(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW);
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW);
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

CASES CITED: DPP (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627;
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439;
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487;
R v Pedrana [2001] NSWCCA 66;
R v Hasenkamp [1998] NSWSC 40;
R v Kennedy [2000] NSWCCA 487;
R v Kneebone (1999) 47 NSWLR 450;
R v Stavrinos [2003] NSWCCA 339;
R v Walton [1999] NSWCCA 452.

PARTIES :
Regina
Brett Robert Teasdale

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60420/03

COUNSEL: A: P.D. Rosser
R: M Grogan

SOLICITORS: A: N Moir
R: S Kavanagh

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 02/31/0452

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Coolahan DCJ

CCA 60420/03
DC 02/31/0452

TOBIAS JA
ADAMS J
SMART AJ
Friday 16 April 2004

REGINA v BRETT ROBERT TEASDALE

Judgment

1 TOBIAS JA: On 25 March 2003 the appellant, Brett Teasdale, pleaded not guilty before his Honour Judge Coolahan in the District Court at Newcastle to the charge that on or about 9 November 2001, at Hamilton in the State of New South Wales, he did inflict grievous bodily harm upon Ian Gregory Eggins (Mr Eggins). However, on 1 April 2003, after a five day trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. On 27 June 2003, the appellant was sentenced by his Honour Judge Williams to 18 months imprisonment commencing 27 June 2003 and suspended upon his entering into an 18 month good behaviour bond pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The appellant appeals to this Court only against his conviction.

2 The Crown's case was that at about 12.35 am on 9 November 2001, at 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 Teasdale

Details

AGLC: R v Teasdale [2004] NSWCCA 91
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 91
Decision Date: 16 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Teasdale involved the appellant, Teasdale, who was convicted of various criminal offences. The dispute reached the court, where the primary issue was whether the trial had miscarried due to the Crown's closing address to the jury. The Crown had invited the jury to disbelieve the evidence of certain witnesses without any basis for making such an invitation. Moreover, there had been no cross-examination of these witnesses, which further complicated the matter. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury to ignore the unsubstantiated and improper assertions made during the closing address.

The legal issues before the court encompassed several critical points. Primarily, the court had to consider whether the trial miscarried under s8(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), given the Crown's improper invitation to the jury to disbelieve witness evidence without a proper basis. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether the trial judge's duty to direct the jury to disregard such unsubstantiated assertions was adequately fulfilled. The court also needed to assess whether an order for a new trial was appropriate under the circumstances.

In examining the Crown's closing address, the court found that the invitation to disbelieve the witnesses' evidence was made without any basis, and there had been no cross-examination of these witnesses. The court concluded that the trial judge's duty to direct the jury to ignore such unsubstantiated and improper assertions was not adequately fulfilled. Consequently, the court found that the trial had miscarried under s8(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). Furthermore, the court held that an order for a new trial was appropriate given the circumstances. The court did not find it necessary to delve into the merits of the jury verdict, as the mistrial was sufficient grounds for the order.

The final orders of the court included the quashing of the appellant's conviction and the ordering of a new trial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that any invitation to the jury to disbelieve witness evidence is made on a proper basis and that any such assertions are properly addressed by the trial judge. This decision highlights the critical role of procedural fairness in criminal trials and the necessity for trial judges to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders