Application of Doyle [2002] NSWSC 1022

Application of Doyle [2002] NSWSC 1022

The application for inquiry was refused because the submissions did not disclose new or fresh evidence; the original conviction was supported by the admissions and evidence at trial. The directions to the jury were correct having regard to s 154A of the Crimes Act 1900, which rendered proof of an intention to permanently deprive unnecessary. The applicant's challenges to trial fairness, counsel's competence, and lack of voir dire did not invalidate the process, and no sense of unease or disquiet was left in the mind of the judge about the safety of the conviction.

Parties
Applicant: Edward Emmett Doyle; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Inquiry Into Conviction or Sentence / Judgment on Application Under S 474 D Crimes Act 1900
Outcome
Application for inquiry refused
Legal Topics
Inquiry Into Conviction, Larceny, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Admissibility of Admissions, Competence of Counsel, Directions to Jury
Criminal Law Inquiry Into Conviction Larceny Joint Criminal Enterprise Admissibility of Admissions Competence of Counsel Directions to Jury

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Emmett Doyle

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Inquiry Into Conviction or Sentence / Judgment on Application Under S 474 D Crimes Act 1900

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is sufficient cause to order an inquiry into the applicant's 1957 conviction for stealing a motor car under s 474D of the Crimes Act 1900
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's submissions disclose fresh or new evidence
  3. 3 Whether the directions given by the trial judge to the jury were erroneous

Ratio Decidendi

The application for inquiry was refused because the submissions did not disclose new or fresh evidence; the original conviction was supported by the admissions and evidence at trial. The directions to the jury were correct having regard to s 154A of the Crimes Act 1900, which rendered proof of an intention to permanently deprive unnecessary. The applicant's challenges to trial fairness, counsel's competence, and lack of voir dire did not invalidate the process, and no sense of unease or disquiet was left in the mind of the judge about the safety of the conviction.

Court Disposition

Application for inquiry refused

Orders

  • Inquiry under s 474D Crimes Act 1900 refused.