Legal Research
Cases
Steve v R

Steve v R

Case [2008] NSWCCA 231 8 October 2008

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

Admissibility of Evidence

Compensatory Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 189 A Crim R 68

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Steve v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 231

HEARING DATE(S): 22 September 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 October 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Hislop J at 97; Price J at 98

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed;
2. Quash the jury’s verdict of conviction given on 5 February 2007;
3. Order that there be a new trial.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal - miscarriage of justice – competence of counsel - failure of counsel to object to irrelevant and prejudicial evidence – evidence that portrayed appellant as violent, sexually predatory and a child molester – failure of counsel to seek direction from trial judge in relation to prejudicial evidence – whether omissions were a tactical decision of defence counsel – failure of trial judge to apply the Evidence Act 1995, s 137 – failure to trial judge to direct jury in respect of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence - denial of fair trial amounted to miscarriage of justice – unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict – new trial ordered

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 61I
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, ss 5, 6.
Evidence Act 1995, ss 32, 33, 55, 97, 100, 110
Evidence Regulations 2005, cl 5

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Ali v R [2005] HCA 8; (2005) 214 ALR 1
Chisari v R (No 2) [2006] NSWCCA 325
Mouroufas v R [2007] NSWCCA 58
Nudd v R [2006] HCA 9; 80 ALJR 614; 162 A Crim R 301
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Le [2002] NSWCCA 186; (2002) 130 A Crim R 44
R v Stalder [1981] NSWLR 2
Rolfe v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 155; (2007) 173 A Crim R 168
Seymour v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 206; 162 A Crim R 576
TKWJ v The Queen [2002] HCA 46; (2002) 212 CLR 124

PARTIES: Michael John STEVE (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/2917

COUNSEL: M Ramage QC (Appellant)
P Calvert (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/71/0056

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Blackmore DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 23 March 2007

CCA 2007/2917

BEAZLEY JA
HISLOP J
PRICE J
8 October 2008

Michael John STEVE v Regina

Headnote

The appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty 14 years imprisonment). The appellant was sentenced to a total of 3 years imprisonment, comprising a non-parole period of 2 years.

The appellant alleged there had been a miscarriage of justice, based on the failure of his solicitor to object to irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, tendency or coincidence evidence, and evidence of bad character, or seek directions from the trial judge in respect of this evidence. Further, the appellant alleged that the trial judge had failed to apply the mandatory provisions of the Evidence Act, s 137. He…

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 Steve v R

Details

AGLC: Steve v R [2008] NSWCCA 231
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 231
Decision Date: 8 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steve, the appellant, appealed against his conviction for a serious criminal offence, contending that the trial process was fundamentally flawed and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The trial judge had convicted the appellant based on evidence that was both irrelevant and prejudicial. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue in the appeal was whether the appellant's trial was conducted in a manner that accorded with the principles of a fair trial as enshrined in the Australian Constitution and the common law. Specifically, the appeal questioned whether the appellant's legal representation was competent and whether the trial judge adequately managed the admission and effect of prejudicial evidence.

The court found that the appellant's trial counsel had failed to object to evidence that painted the appellant in an unjustifiably negative light, portraying him as violent, sexually predatory, and a child molester. Furthermore, the trial counsel did not seek direction from the trial judge in relation to the prejudicial evidence. The court considered whether these omissions were a tactical decision by the defence counsel or if they represented a failure in competence. Additionally, the trial judge did not apply section 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 and failed to direct the jury regarding the prejudicial evidence. The court concluded that these failings meant that the appellant was denied a fair trial, leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict.

In light of the above, the High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The court found that the appellant had not received a fair trial and ordered a new trial to be conducted. This decision underscores the importance of both competent legal representation and judicial oversight in ensuring that trials are conducted fairly and that verdicts are based on relevant and admissible evidence.

Orders