O'Hearn (formerly DAO (No 4)) v R [2021] NSWCCA 103

O'Hearn (formerly DAO (No 4)) v R [2021] NSWCCA 103

The absence of evidence at trial of Vincent Ryan's subsequent convictions does not amount to a miscarriage of justice, as those convictions would not be admissible to prove he committed the relevant additional offences due to the operation of s 91 of the Evidence Act. Their only relevance would be to Ryan's credibility, which was already impeached by evidence of his prior convictions, and thus there is no significant possibility the verdict would have been different.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence' 'credibility of Witness' 'sexual Abuse of Children' 'admissibility of Convictions as Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence' 'credibility of Witness' 'sexual Abuse of Children' 'admissibility of Convictions as Evidence']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether fresh evidence (subsequent convictions of witness Vincent Ryan) is admissible to affect conviction for historical child sexual abuse; whether absence of such fresh evidence led to a miscarriage of justice; whether convictions can be used as evidence of the witness's guilt in additional offences"]

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of evidence at trial of Vincent Ryan's subsequent convictions does not amount to a miscarriage of justice, as those convictions would not be admissible to prove he committed the relevant additional offences due to the operation of s 91 of the Evidence Act. Their only relevance would be to Ryan's credibility, which was already impeached by evidence of his prior convictions, and thus there is no significant possibility the verdict would have been different.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for extension of time granted.' 'Leave to appeal refused.']