Legal Research
Cases
R v Walters

R v Walters

Case [2002] NSWCCA 291 25 July 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v. WALTERS, William John [2002] NSWCCA 291

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60572/01

HEARING DATE(S): 8 and 9 July 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 July 2002

PARTIES :

Regina - respondent
William John Walters - appellant

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Studdert J at 101; Dowd J at 102

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70076/99

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sully J

COUNSEL : Mr. M. Abdul-Karim for appellant
Mr. D. Fagan SC for respondent

SOLICITORS: Paclaw Solicitors, Kings Cross for appellant
Commonwealth DPP for respondent

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - Ten counts heard together - Facts relating to earlier counts probative of knowledge and intention in respect of later counts - Not admissible as tendency or coincidence evidence - Whether specific direction necessary - Whether prejudicial effect outweighed probative value.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 ss.95, 97, 98, 101

CASES CITED:
Cleland v. The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1
Green v. The Queen (1971) 126 CLR 28
R v. Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v. Buckett (1995) 79 ACrimR 302
R v. Tannous (1987) 10 NSWLR 303
R v. The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599
Spies v. The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 603

DECISION: 1. Appeal against convictions dismissed. 2. Leave to appeal against sentences refused.

CCA 60572/01
SC 70076/99

HODGSON JA
STUDDERT J
DOWD J
Thursday 25 July 2002

REGINA v. William John WALTERS

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: On 26 June 2001, William John Walters was indicted on charges that he:

(1) between about January 1989 and about April 1990, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales was knowingly concerned in Lymkom Pty Limited defrauding the Commonwealth in respect of group tax required to be remitted to the Commissioner of Taxation by Lymkom Pty Limited.

(2) between about February 1990 and about July 1993, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales was knowingly concerned in Kindby Pty Limited defrauding the Commonwealth in respect of group tax required to be remitted to the Commissioner of Taxation by Kindby Pty Limited.

(3) between about May 1990 and about June 1993, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales was knowingly concerned in Frego Pty Limited defrauding the Commonwealth in respect of group tax required to be remitted to the Commissioner of Taxation by Frego Pty Limited.

(4) between about March 1992 and about February 1994, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales was knowingly concerned in Taureema Pty Limited defrauding the Commonwealth in respect of group tax required to be remitted to the Commissioner of Taxation by Taureema Pty Limited.

(5) between about February 1994, and about February 1995, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales was knowingly concerned in Budscan Pty Limited defrauding the Commonwealth in respect of group tax required to be remitted to the Commissioner of Taxation by Budscan Pty Limited.

(6) between about February 1995 and about January 1996 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales was knowingly…

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 Walters

Details

AGLC: R v Walters [2002] NSWCCA 291
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 291
Decision Date: 25 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walters before the court involved the defendant, Walters, who faced ten counts related to drug trafficking. The prosecution sought to present evidence from earlier counts as probative of Walters' knowledge and intention in respect of later counts. The court was required to determine whether this evidence should be admitted and if specific directions were necessary to mitigate any prejudicial effects. The key issue was whether the probative value of the evidence from earlier counts outweighed any potential prejudicial effect on the defendant.

The court examined the principles governing the admissibility of evidence from earlier counts in drug trafficking cases. It considered whether the evidence was relevant to proving knowledge and intention in respect of later counts and whether it could be admitted as tendency or coincidence evidence. The court weighed the probative value of the evidence against its potential prejudicial effect on the defendant. In doing so, it took into account the need to ensure a fair trial and the importance of directing the jury on how to properly consider such evidence. The court concluded that the evidence was not admissible as tendency or coincidence evidence but was relevant to the defendant's knowledge and intention in later counts. The court held that while the evidence had significant probative value, its prejudicial effect could be mitigated through specific directions to the jury.

The court found that the probative value of the evidence from earlier counts did indeed outweigh the prejudicial effect, provided that the jury was appropriately directed on how to consider it. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the jury understood the limited purpose for which the evidence could be considered and that it did not lead them to infer a propensity to commit drug trafficking offences. The trial judge was directed to provide clear instructions to the jury to this effect. The court further found that no additional specific direction was necessary beyond those already given by the trial judge.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence from earlier counts was to be admitted, subject to the jury being properly directed on its limited purpose. The court confirmed that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, and no further specific direction was required. The trial proceeded with the jury being appropriately instructed on the admissibility and consideration of the evidence from earlier counts.

Orders