R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 388

R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 388

The appeal was dismissed because the Crown had not invited the jury to use the appellant's inconsistent accounts as consciousness of guilt, no miscarriage arose from the absence of a lies direction, the proposed psychological evidence was fresh but did not create a significant possibility that a reasonable jury would have acquitted and would in any event be excluded under s 135(c), and the judge's identification directions adequately covered the relevant dangers, including by referring to the clothing issue in the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed.
Legal Topics
['identification Evidence' 'alibi Evidence' 'inconsistent Accounts' 'fresh Evidence' 'expert Psychological Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['identification Evidence' 'alibi Evidence' 'inconsistent Accounts' 'fresh Evidence' 'expert Psychological Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995']

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 Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury about the appellant's inconsistent accounts of his activities on the night of the robbery." 'Whether the absence at trial of proposed fresh expert psychological evidence about eyewitness identification resulted in a miscarriage of justice.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in directions on identification evidence by not directing on the potential significance of similar clothing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Crown had not invited the jury to use the appellant's inconsistent accounts as consciousness of guilt, no miscarriage arose from the absence of a lies direction, the proposed psychological evidence was fresh but did not create a significant possibility that a reasonable jury would have acquitted and would in any event be excluded under s 135(c), and the judge's identification directions adequately covered the relevant dangers, including by referring to the clothing issue in the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Conviction and sentence confirmed.']