Legal Research
Cases
Scaysbrook v The The Queen

Scaysbrook v The The Queen

Case [2022] NSWCCA 69 1 April 2022

Admissibility of Evidence

Rule in Browne v Dunn

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Scaysbrook v R [2022] NSWCCA 69
Hearing dates: 25 March 2022
Date of orders: 1 April 2022
Decision date: 01 April 2022
Before: Bellew J at [1]
Lonergan J at [153]
Ierace J at [154]
Decision: (1) Leave in respect of grounds 1 and 2 is granted.
(2) Leave in respect of ground 4 is refused.
(3) The appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against conviction – Where the applicant was found guilty by a jury of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm following an incident with police at a random breath testing station – Whether there was a failure on the part of the Crown to put its case to the applicant when cross-examining him – Consideration of the application of the rule in Browne v Dunn – Where the applicant was clearly on notice of the case against him – Whether the rule necessitated the Crown putting specific propositions in cross-examination – Whether it was open to the jury to find the Crown case established beyond reasonable doubt
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against conviction – Where grounds of appeal asserted that the trial judge had misdirected the jury in relation to a complaint of injury said to have been made by the applicant and in relation to the fact that the police witnesses had read their statements when giving evidence in chief – Where no issue had been taken by counsel at trial – Application of r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) – Directions entirely appropriate in light of submissions which had been made by counsel in his closing address to the jury – Leave to rely on those grounds refused – Appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act NSW (2002)

Cases Cited:
Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Limited v The Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1
Aravena v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 258; [2015] NSWCCA 288
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Greenhalgh v R [2017] NSWCCA 94
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Masterton Homes Pty Ltd v Palm Assets Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 234; (2009) 261 ALR 382
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
Pratten v R [2021] NSWCCA 25
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
Seymour v The Australian Broadcasting Commission (1977) 19 NSWLR 219
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
Spencer v Bamber [2012] NSWCA 274
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
Trevascus v R (2021) 104 NSWLR 571; [2021] NSWCCA 104

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Grant Thomas Scaysbrook – Applicant

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 Scaysbrook v The The Queen

Details

AGLC: Scaysbrook v The The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 69
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 69
Decision Date: 01 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Scaysbrook, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The conviction arose from an incident involving police at a random breath testing station. The central issues before the court included whether there was a failure on the part of the Crown to adequately present its case to the applicant during cross-examination, and if the rule in Browne v Dunn applied in this instance. The court also needed to determine if the Crown was required to put specific propositions in cross-examination and whether it was open to the jury to find the Crown's case established beyond reasonable doubt.

The court considered that the applicant was clearly aware of the case against him, and there was no requirement for the Crown to specifically outline propositions during cross-examination. The rule in Browne v Dunn did not necessitate such an approach in this case. The court further held that it was open to the jury to find the Crown's case established beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. Additionally, the court addressed the grounds of appeal related to the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding a complaint of injury and the reading of police statements in evidence, ruling that no misdirection had occurred and that the applicant's appeal was not supported by the law or evidence.

In conclusion, the court refused the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the trial judge's directions were entirely appropriate given the submissions made by counsel during the trial, and there was no basis for an appeal under the circumstances presented. The applicant's conviction for recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm was upheld.

Orders