Regina v Roberts - [1999] NSWCCA 95

Reported Decision:
106 A Crim R 67

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Roberts [1999] NSWCCA 95

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60646/98

HEARING DATE(S): 12/04/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 June 1999

PARTIES :

Reginald George Roberts (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Hidden J at 2; Smart AJ at 20

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 95/11/0276

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: C. E. Backhouse QC, DCJ

COUNSEL: R. Kent QC (Appellant)
C. Maxwell QC (Respondent/Crown)

SOLICITORS: Byrne & Clark (Appellant)
R. Gray (Respondent/Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - application for leave to appeal under s5F Criminal Appeal Act - permanent stay of trial in District Court refused - loss of opportunity for defence to produce evidence

ACTS CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23
R v Tolmie (CCA unreported 7 December 1994)

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APEAL
NO. 60646/98
WOOD CJ at CL
HIDDEN J
SMART AJ
Thursday 3 June 1999

Regina v Reginald George ROBERTS
JUDGMENT

1 WOOD CJ at CL: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Hidden J and Smart AJ. I agree with their reasons and the orders proposed.
---

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60646/98

WOOD CJ at CL
HIDDEN J
SMART AJ

Thursday 3 June 1999

Regina v Reginald George Roberts

Reasons for judgment

2 HIDDEN J : The applicant, Reginald George Roberts, awaits trial in the District Court on charges of publishing a false statement with intent to obtain money (s178BB of the Crimes Act 1900) and stealing a motor vehicle (s154AA). He applied for a permanent stay of the proceedings before Backhouse DCJ, who refused the application. He seeks leave to appeal against that decision, pursuant to s5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.
3 The first charge alleges that in September 1990 at Nowra the applicant made a false insurance claim on the basis that a Kenworth truck had been stolen, when in fact it had not. The second charge alleges that he stole a Commodore sedan at Lithgow in February 1992. The Crown case is founded primarily upon evidence that in mid-1994 a Kenworth truck and a Commodore sedan were found in the possession of the applicant at premises in South Australia. It is alleged that the truck is the same vehicle which the applicant had claimed was stolen in 1990, and the Commodore is the vehicle which was stolen in 1992. For those propositions the Crown relies upon expert evidence.
4 Both vehicles were examined by Constable Peter McKenzie of the South Australia Police Technical Services Branch, whose training included the examination of motor vehicles. As to the Kenworth truck, he found that the engine number on the Caterpillar engine had been obliterated, as had the chassis number on the front right chassis rail. When he examined the identification plate (or compliance plate) attached 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 Regina v Roberts

Details

AGLC: Regina v Roberts [1999] NSWCCA 95
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 95
Decision Date: 3 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Roberts involved an appeal by the defendant, who sought leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court. The District Court had declined to permanently stay the trial, which the defendant argued was necessary to allow him to produce evidence in his defence. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court, which ultimately rejected the application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the court centred around the circumstances under which a permanent stay of trial could be granted and the consequences of such a stay for both the defence and the prosecution. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the defendant's inability to produce evidence at the trial stage was sufficient grounds for a permanent stay, and if so, whether the circumstances warranted such a drastic measure.

The Supreme Court examined the criteria for granting a permanent stay, including the principle that a trial should not proceed if it would result in a miscarriage of justice. The court considered the evidence presented by the defendant and the reasons for the delay in producing it. The court held that while the defendant's inability to produce evidence at the trial stage was a significant factor, it did not outweigh the importance of ensuring that trials proceed without undue delay. The court found that the defendant's actions in delaying the production of evidence, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, constituted a substantial failure to act reasonably. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court's decision underscored the importance of timely production of evidence in criminal proceedings and the need for both parties to act reasonably to facilitate the fair and efficient administration of justice. The court's ruling emphasised that while the interests of justice must be paramount, they must also be balanced against the need for finality and the potential prejudice to the prosecution caused by delays. The court did not grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the District Court's decision to proceed with the trial.

Orders