Regina v Malcolm Potier [2011] NSWCCA 170

Regina v Malcolm Potier [2011] NSWCCA 170

The applications were dismissed because evidence from the juror about jury deliberations or hypothetical reactions to evidence not before the jury was impermissible, of no real value, and irrelevant to the Court's own assessment on a fresh evidence appeal; and because the proposed cross-examination of a police officer was directed to obtaining evidence for the appeal rather than testing compliance with the order to produce, with no basis shown for doubting proper compliance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal; Interlocutory Applications / Application to the Court Under S 22(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 After a Single Judge Refused Applications to Compel Witnesses to Attend and Be Examined
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'fresh Evidence' 'juror Deliberations' 'order to Produce' 'witness Examination' 'telephone Interception Recordings' 'bail Pending Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'jury Law'] ['conviction Appeal' 'fresh Evidence' 'juror Deliberations' 'order to Produce' 'witness Examination' 'telephone Interception Recordings' 'bail Pending Appeal']

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; Interlocutory Applications / Application to the Court Under S 22(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 After a Single Judge Refused Applications to Compel Witnesses to Attend and Be Examined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a juror from the applicant's first trial should be compelled to attend and give evidence about the effect that alleged fresh evidence would have had on the jury's deliberations or verdicts." 'Whether a police technical officer or other suitable officer should be compelled to attend for cross-examination about compliance with an order to produce recordings made under telephone interception warrants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were dismissed because evidence from the juror about jury deliberations or hypothetical reactions to evidence not before the jury was impermissible, of no real value, and irrelevant to the Court's own assessment on a fresh evidence appeal; and because the proposed cross-examination of a police officer was directed to obtaining evidence for the appeal rather than testing compliance with the order to produce, with no basis shown for doubting proper compliance.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • ['The applications be dismissed.']