Stevens v The Queen - [2015] NSWCCA 235

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stevens v R [2015] NSWCCA 235
Hearing dates: 13 July 2015
Decision date: 02 September 2015
Before: Simpson JA at [1];
Button J at [2];
Fagan J at [162]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – eight convictions for sexual offences – whether the convictions are unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence – whether the evidence given by the complainant at a subsequent trial amounts to fresh evidence – whether the convictions
should be quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 63, 65, 76, 89
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 306I
Cases Cited: Aoun v R [2011] NSWCCA 284
Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29
Hay v R [2013] NSWCCA 22
Kidd v R [2014] NSWCCA 319
M v the Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 Miller v R [2014] NSWCCA 34
R v Abou-Chabake [2004] NSWCCA 356; (2004) 149 A Crim R 417
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: David Stevens (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P O’Donnell (Applicant)
E Balodis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Green & McKay (Applicant)
C Hyland – Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/91176
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Citation:

[2014] NSWDC 167

Date of Decision:

1 August 2014

Before:

Yehia SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/00091176

Judgment

SIMPSON JA: I agree with Button J.
BUTTON J: This is an application for leave to appeal against eight convictions for sexual offences entered by Judge Yehia SC in the District Court of New South Wales on 1 August 2014. Those convictions were entered after a trial by jury of an indictment containing nine counts ended with verdicts of guilty on eight of them, and a verdict of not guilty on one of them. Because the two proposed grounds of appeal are founded upon questions of fact, leave is required: see the judgment of Basten JA in Aoun v R [2011] NSWCCA 284. There is no application for leave to appeal against sentence.
I shall recount the grounds more formally later in this judgment, but at this stage it suffices to say that the first ground is that the eight convictions are unreasonable or unable to be supported, and the second ground is founded upon what is said to be fresh evidence given by the complainant in a further trial after the trial under consideration had concluded.
To state the allegation that substantially underpinned the prosecution against the applicant concisely, the complainant gave evidence that, in 1978 when she was 17 years of age, she was sexually assaulted by a group of men in the back of a panel van after a social event in the suburbs of Sydney. She alleged that the applicant was one of those men.

Procedural background

In order to understand the proposed grounds, it is necessary to set out the course of…

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 Stevens v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stevens v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 235
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 235
Decision Date: 02 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stevens appealed against eight convictions for sexual offences, arguing that they were unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence. The appeal focused on the evidence presented by the complainant at a subsequent trial, which the appellant argued amounted to fresh evidence. The court needed to determine whether the evidence was indeed fresh and, if so, whether it was of such a nature that the convictions should be quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered. The legal issues involved the interpretation of the law regarding fresh evidence, the standard of proof for criminal convictions, and the discretion of the court in considering an appeal against conviction.

The court examined the evidence provided by the complainant at the subsequent trial and considered whether it constituted fresh evidence. The court found that the evidence was not fresh as it did not arise from an event that occurred after the original trial. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence did not undermine the verdicts of the jury, as it did not introduce any new facts or circumstances that were not considered at the original trial. The court also considered the standard of proof for criminal convictions and found that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the convictions were not unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions. The evidence provided by the complainant at the subsequent trial did not amount to fresh evidence and did not undermine the verdicts of the jury. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders