Davis v R [2017] NSWCCA 257

Davis v R [2017] NSWCCA 257

The applicant's trial counsel did not cause a miscarriage of justice by adducing evidence of the applicant's drug use and credit card fraud because that course had a forensic advantage: it supported the case that she was a personal user who funded drugs by fraud rather than by supplying drugs. However, some Crown questions about general dishonesty, a fake licence and equipment for false documents were inadmissible credibility evidence for which leave under s 104(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) was not sought and could not have been granted, although the proviso would apply to that error because it did not deprive the applicant of a fairly open chance of acquittal. The decisive...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court of NSW Conviction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction quashed; no new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'trial Counsel Forensic Decisions' 'credibility Evidence' 'cross Examination of Accused' 'tendency Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'proviso' 'drug Supply']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['conviction Appeal' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'trial Counsel Forensic Decisions' 'credibility Evidence' 'cross Examination of Accused' 'tendency Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'proviso' 'drug Supply']

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 Conviction Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court of NSW Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether trial counsel's decision to adduce evidence that the applicant was a drug-user who funded her habit by credit card fraud occasioned a miscarriage of justice." "Whether the Crown's cross-examination of the applicant about dishonesty, prior convictions and false document matters required leave under s 104(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether any inadmissible credibility evidence caused a substantial miscarriage of justice or should be addressed by the proviso under s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).' 'Whether evidence that Mr Hogan and Ms Ironside had previously supplied drugs should have been treated as tendency evidence requiring a tendency direction.' "Whether the trial judge's anti-tendency direction concerning Mr Hogan and Ms Ironside occasioned a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether a new trial should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's trial counsel did not cause a miscarriage of justice by adducing evidence of the applicant's drug use and credit card fraud because that course had a forensic advantage: it supported the case that she was a personal user who funded drugs by fraud rather than by supplying drugs. However, some Crown questions about general dishonesty, a fake licence and equipment for false documents were inadmissible credibility evidence for which leave under s 104(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) was not sought and could not have been granted, although the proviso would apply to that error because it did not deprive the applicant of a fairly open chance of acquittal. The decisive...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction quashed; no new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' "The applicant's conviction is quashed."]