Regina v Hemmelstein [2001] NSWCCA 220

Regina v Hemmelstein [2001] NSWCCA 220

By majority, the application was dismissed. Hulme J held that the evidence of the appellant's intention to play golf was relevant and admissible because the Crown made the appellant's golfing intention and state of mind an issue, but its exclusion added no or so little significant weight to the defence that it did not deprive him of a chance of acquittal and caused no substantial miscarriage of justice. Meagher JA and Hulme J held that the evidence concerning Mr Murphy's note and the telephone call evidence were inadmissible because they did not relevantly affect the issue of the applicant's knowledge of the cocaine. The Crown case was strong, and the conviction stood.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal After District Court Jury Conviction
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['knowingly Importing a Commercial Quantity of Cocaine' 'application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction' 'wrongful Exclusion of Evidence' 'relevance and Admissibility of Evidence' 'hearsay and Out of Court Representations' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['knowingly Importing a Commercial Quantity of Cocaine' 'application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction' 'wrongful Exclusion of Evidence' 'relevance and Admissibility of Evidence' 'hearsay and Out of Court Representations' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal After District Court Jury Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of out of court representations by the appellant to his brother about his intention to play golf in Australia.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of a note and conversations involving solicitor Mr Christopher Murphy and a man named James Simonds.' "Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence from the appellant's brother about a telephone call from a man identifying himself as Jim or JS." 'Whether any wrongful exclusion of evidence caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the application was dismissed. Hulme J held that the evidence of the appellant's intention to play golf was relevant and admissible because the Crown made the appellant's golfing intention and state of mind an issue, but its exclusion added no or so little significant weight to the defence that it did not deprive him of a chance of acquittal and caused no substantial miscarriage of justice. Meagher JA and Hulme J held that the evidence concerning Mr Murphy's note and the telephone call evidence were inadmissible because they did not relevantly affect the issue of the applicant's knowledge of the cocaine. The Crown case was strong, and the conviction stood.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']