Legal Research
Cases
Vickers v R

Vickers v R

Case [2006] NSWCCA 60 31 March 2006

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Hearsay

Criminal Appeal Rules

Criminal Procedure Act

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
160 A Crim R 195

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Vickers v R [2006] NSWCCA 60

HEARING DATE(S): 23 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
31 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1; Simpson J at 20; Hall J at 117

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: appeal against conviction - maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm - assault occasioning actual bodily harm - admission of evidence over objection - statement tendered at trial pursuant to s65(2)(b) and (c) of Evidence Act 1995 - maker of statement unavailable to give evidence - objection taken on grounds of late notice and discretionary factors - no separate objection to content of evidence - whole of statement admitted - whether trial judge erred in admitting statement - - whether trial judge failed adequately to warn jury of the danger of relying on the evidence of the statement - directions to jury adequate to draw attention to any potential unreliability of statement, including those parts now held to have been inadmissible - hearsay provisions of the Evidence Act - exceptions to the hearsay rule - identification of previous representation - identification of what fact was intended to be asserted by previous representation - relevant evidence - evidence of out of court representation by one person cannot be given by out of court representation of another person - evidence of previous representations inadmissible - effect of admission of inadmissible evidence of previous representation - Criminal Appeal Rules, rule 4 - whether appellant requires leave before being permitted to argue admissibility of previous representations as a ground of appeal - Criminal Procedure Act s68, s289 - appellant waived right to committal hearing - proviso to s6 of the Criminal Appeal Act - admission of the inadmissible evidence would and should have had no significance in verdict - evidence properly admitted proves beyond reasonable doubt guilt of the offence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 199 s9
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s6
Criminal Appeal Rules, rule 4
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s68, s289
Evidence Act 1995 s55, s56, s59, s60, s62, s65, s66, s67, s81, s82, s135, s137, s165, s192

CASES CITED: House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
Lee v The Queen [1998] HCA 60; 195 CLR 594
R v Plevac (1995) 84 A Crim R 570
Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; 80 ALJR 444

PARTIES: Brett David Vickers - Applicant
Crown - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2457

COUNSEL: HK Dhanji - Appellant
V Lydiard - Respondent

SOLICITORS: William O'Brien Solicitors - Appellant
S Kavanagh - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0920

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Blackmore DCJ

2005/2457

JAMES J
SIMPSON J
HALL J
Friday 31 March 2006

Brett David VICKERS v REGINA

Judgment

1 JAMES J: I have read in draft the judgment of Simpson J and I agree with her Honour’s conclusion that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed. I agree with most 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 Vickers v R

Details

AGLC: Vickers v R [2006] NSWCCA 60
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 60
Decision Date: 31 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Vickers v R, the appellant, Vickers, was convicted of two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. The appeal was against the conviction, specifically concerning the admissibility of certain statements made by the appellant during the trial. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue revolved around the admissibility of a statement made by the appellant that was tendered under sections 65(2)(b) and (c) of the Evidence Act 1995. The statement was admitted despite objections based on late notice and discretionary factors, although no separate objection was raised regarding the content of the statement itself. The court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting the statement and whether the judge adequately warned the jury of the potential dangers of relying on it. Additionally, the court examined whether the appellant needed leave to argue the admissibility of previous representations as a ground of appeal, given the procedural context.

The High Court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the statement, as the evidence was properly admitted and proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the directions given to the jury were adequate to draw attention to any potential unreliability of the statement. The court also determined that the appellant had waived his right to a committal hearing and thus was not entitled to argue the admissibility of previous representations as a ground of appeal. The High Court concluded that the admission of the inadmissible evidence would not have had any significance in the verdict.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction, confirming the appellant's conviction on all counts.

Orders