Miller v R [2022] NSWCCA 255

Miller v R [2022] NSWCCA 255

The trial judge gave a sufficient account of her reasoning for rejecting the applicant's denials, principally based on her assessment of credibility and the applicant's minimisation of opportunity. The conviction was supported by the evidence—particularly the acceptance of the complainant's evidence as truthful and reliable—so the verdict was not unreasonable. The 'fresh' evidence sought to be introduced would not have been likely to produce a different verdict given its limited probative value and denial by the purported source, thus no miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.

Parties
Applicant: Daniel Edward Miller; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals Against Conviction, Judge Alone Trial, Sexual Offences Against Children, Assessment of Credibility, Adequacy of Reasons, Unreasonable Verdict, Fresh Evidence, Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Appeals Against Conviction Judge Alone Trial Sexual Offences Against Children Assessment of Credibility Adequacy of Reasons Unreasonable Verdict Fresh Evidence +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Edward Miller

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge gave adequate reasons for rejecting the applicant's denials
  2. 2 Whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence
  3. 3 Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to unavailability of fresh evidence at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge gave a sufficient account of her reasoning for rejecting the applicant's denials, principally based on her assessment of credibility and the applicant's minimisation of opportunity. The conviction was supported by the evidence—particularly the acceptance of the complainant's evidence as truthful and reliable—so the verdict was not unreasonable. The 'fresh' evidence sought to be introduced would not have been likely to produce a different verdict given its limited probative value and denial by the purported source, thus no miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • (1) Grant leave to appeal in respect of grounds 1 and 2.
  • (2) Dismiss the appeal.