R v Grey [2000] NSWCCA 46

R v Grey [2000] NSWCCA 46

The majority held that, even if the non-disclosed letter of comfort and Reynolds' sentencing benefit were relevant to credit, reasonable diligence could have detected that Reynolds had sought and obtained favourable consideration for assistance to authorities, and the omission did not cause a miscarriage of justice. In light of the factual evidence supporting guilt, adding one further credit challenge to Reynolds did not give rise to a significant possibility that the jury, acting reasonably, would have acquitted the appellant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Convictions / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal; by Majority, Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
By majority, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['fresh or New Evidence on Appeal' 'disclosure by Prosecution' 'crown Witness Credibility' 'police Informer or Assisting Witness' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'evidence Act 1995 S 165 Warning' 'rule 4 Leave']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['fresh or New Evidence on Appeal' 'disclosure by Prosecution' 'crown Witness Credibility' 'police Informer or Assisting Witness' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'evidence Act 1995 S 165 Warning' 'rule 4 Leave']

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 Appeal Against Convictions / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal; by Majority, Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether non-disclosure that Crown witness Reynolds received sentencing leniency for assistance to police caused a miscarriage of justice in the appellant's trial." 'Whether the material concerning the letter of comfort and sentencing leniency was fresh or new evidence that could have been obtained with reasonable diligence.' 'Whether the inability to cross-examine Reynolds about the benefit created a significant possibility that the jury, acting reasonably, would have acquitted the appellant.' 'Whether an alternative ground based on R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677 or a direction under s 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 should affect the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that, even if the non-disclosed letter of comfort and Reynolds' sentencing benefit were relevant to credit, reasonable diligence could have detected that Reynolds had sought and obtained favourable consideration for assistance to authorities, and the omission did not cause a miscarriage of justice. In light of the factual evidence supporting guilt, adding one further credit challenge to Reynolds did not give rise to a significant possibility that the jury, acting reasonably, would have acquitted the appellant.

Court Disposition

By majority, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']