B v R [2015] NSWCCA 103

B v R [2015] NSWCCA 103

The appellant did not discharge the evidential burden for the defences of sudden or extraordinary emergency or self-defence because, viewing the evidence objectively, there were reasonable alternatives in law available to her, including appeal and urgent application in the Family Court; her action was not a reasonable or proportionate response to the perceived emergency. The rulings on the admissibility of evidence, including exclusion of evidence going to the truth of sexual abuse and Dr Waters' report, disclosed no error. The sentencing judge was not required to make a positive finding regarding the absence of mental illness or to permit cross-examination of the victim impact statement...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence
Outcome
Conviction appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Conviction' 'evidential Burden of Defences' 'sudden or Extraordinary Emergency' 'self Defence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'family Law Act S 65 Y' 'sentencing' 'mental Illness' 'victim Impact Statement']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal From Conviction' 'evidential Burden of Defences' 'sudden or Extraordinary Emergency' 'self Defence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'family Law Act S 65 Y' 'sentencing' 'mental Illness' 'victim Impact Statement']

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 / Appeal From Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether trial judge erred in ruling that the appellant did not discharge the evidential burden for defences of sudden or extraordinary emergency and self-defence to go to the jury' 'Whether trial judge erred in rulings on admissibility of evidence including the question of sexual abuse' "Whether trial judge erred in failing to make findings on the admissibility of Dr Waters' report and relating findings" 'Whether trial judge erred in sentencing by failing to make findings as to mental illness' 'Whether trial judge erred in refusing opportunity to cross-examine on victim impact statement']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not discharge the evidential burden for the defences of sudden or extraordinary emergency or self-defence because, viewing the evidence objectively, there were reasonable alternatives in law available to her, including appeal and urgent application in the Family Court; her action was not a reasonable or proportionate response to the perceived emergency. The rulings on the admissibility of evidence, including exclusion of evidence going to the truth of sexual abuse and Dr Waters' report, disclosed no error. The sentencing judge was not required to make a positive finding regarding the absence of mental illness or to permit cross-examination of the victim impact statement...

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal from conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal dismissed.']