R v Collisson [2003] NSWCCA 212

R v Collisson [2003] NSWCCA 212

The trial judge did not err in refusing to compel Bradley to give evidence under s 128(5). Bradley was an accomplice with unresolved charges arising from the same events, no party knew what evidence he would give, and the judge was entitled to regard any relevant evidence from him as inherently suspect or unreliable when deciding that the interests of justice did not require him to give evidence. Because that ruling was error free, and because there was no acceptable basis for concluding the appellant would have been better off if the trial had been adjourned until Bradley's charges were resolved, the refusal to abort or adjourn the trial did not miscarry and no substantial miscarriage of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction for Murder
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'section 128 Evidence Act Certificate' 'compellability of Witness Claiming Privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'accomplice Evidence' 'interests of Justice' 'application to Discharge Jury or Adjourn Trial']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'section 128 Evidence Act Certificate' 'compellability of Witness Claiming Privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'accomplice Evidence' 'interests of Justice' 'application to Discharge Jury or Adjourn Trial']

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 New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction for Murder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to make an order under s 128(5) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) requiring Simon Bradley to give evidence after he objected that the evidence may incriminate him.' 'Whether the trial judge was entitled to treat any evidence from Bradley, an accomplice with unresolved charges, as inherently suspect or unreliable when deciding whether the interests of justice required him to give evidence.' "Whether the trial judge's refusal to abort or adjourn the trial caused unfairness or a miscarriage of justice."]

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing to compel Bradley to give evidence under s 128(5). Bradley was an accomplice with unresolved charges arising from the same events, no party knew what evidence he would give, and the judge was entitled to regard any relevant evidence from him as inherently suspect or unreliable when deciding that the interests of justice did not require him to give evidence. Because that ruling was error free, and because there was no acceptable basis for concluding the appellant would have been better off if the trial had been adjourned until Bradley's charges were resolved, the refusal to abort or adjourn the trial did not miscarry and no substantial miscarriage of...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']