RR v R

Case [2011] NSWCCA 235 8 December 2011

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: RR v R [2011] NSWCCA 235
Hearing dates: 8 September 2011
Decision date: 08 December 2011
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; James J at [127]; Johnson J at [128]
Decision:
(1) Appeal against conviction dismissed.
(2) Leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - evidence - false statements - whether false statements could be lies evidencing consciousness of guilt

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - whether misdirection in presentation of defence case in summing up to jury

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - objections not taken below - whether miscarriage of justice - Criminal Appeal Rules r 4
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentencing - whether manifestly excessive - Crimes Act 1900 s 66A
Legislation Cited: Court of Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Appeal Rules
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes Act 1900 s 61M(2), s 66A, s 66C(1)
Cases Cited: CC v R [2010] NSWCCA 337
Condon v R (1995) 83 A Crim R 335 Darwiche v R [2011] NSWCCA 62
Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 243 FLR 28
Edwards v R [1993] HCA 63; (1993) 178 CLR 193
Eedens v R [2009] NSWCCA 254
Germakian v R [2007 NSWCCA 373; (2007) 70 NSWLR 467
Han v R [2009] NSWCCA 300 Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 85 ALJR 195
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; 85 ALJR 1154
Pemble v R [1971] HCA 20; (1971) 124 CLR 107
Picken v R [2007] NSWCCA 319
Papakosmas v R [1999] HCA 37; (1999) 196 CLR 297
Sanchez v R [2009] NSWCCA 171; (2009) 196 A Crim R 472
Tekely v R [2007] NSWCCA 75
R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434; (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v Araya [2005] NSWCCA 283; 155 A Crim R 555
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v Davis [1999] NSWCCA 15
R v Dinh [2010] NSWCCA 74; 199 A Crim R 573
R v Fuge [2001] NSWCCA 208; (2001) 123 A Crim R 310
R v George [2004] NSWCCA 247; (2004) 149 A Crim R 38
R v Heyde (1990) 20 NSWLR 234
R v HJWG [2011] NSWCCA 50
R v ITA [2003] NSWCCA 174
R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157
R v Lucas, (Ruth) [1981] 1 QB 720
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172
R v Sutton (1986) 5 NSWLR 697
R v Tillot (Court of Criminal Appeal, 8 April 1991, unreported)
R v Veverka [1978] 1 NSWLR 478
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA…

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 RR v R

Details

AGLC: RR v R [2011] NSWCCA 235
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 235
Decision Date: 08 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of RR v R, the appellant, RR, appealed against his conviction and sentence for various criminal offences, including false statements and assault. The matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal centred on the sufficiency of the evidence presented against RR, particularly concerning the alleged false statements made by him and whether these could be considered lies that evidenced consciousness of guilt. Additionally, RR argued that there was a misdirection in the presentation of the defence case during the summing up to the jury, which potentially impacted the fairness of the trial.

The court was required to consider whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in relation to the false statements. The court also had to determine if there was any misdirection by the trial judge during the summing up to the jury that might have prejudiced the defence. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether any objections raised in the appeal, which had not been taken at the trial, could be considered under the miscarriage of justice provisions of the Criminal Appeal Rules rule 4.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the evidence, particularly concerning the false statements, was sufficient to support the conviction, as it was consistent with lies that evidenced consciousness of guilt. The court also determined that there was no misdirection by the trial judge in the summing up, as the defence case was adequately presented to the jury. The court further held that the objections raised in the appeal, which had not been taken at the trial, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive under the provisions of the Crimes Act 1900. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders