Harris v R [2005] NSWCCA 432

Harris v R [2005] NSWCCA 432

The appeal was dismissed because it was open to the trial judge to admit the deceased's statement under Evidence Act s 65(2)(b): the statement was made about 24 hours after the incident and in circumstances, including its formal making to police and the presence of other witnesses, that made fabrication unlikely. The jury directions, read as a whole, sufficiently conveyed that the Crown bore the burden of disproving self defence beyond reasonable doubt and there was no real risk that the jury misunderstood that burden.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Conviction for Manslaughter
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'admissibility of Hearsay Evidence' 'previous Representations by Unavailable Persons' 'self Defence' 'jury Directions' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['manslaughter' 'admissibility of Hearsay Evidence' 'previous Representations by Unavailable Persons' 'self Defence' 'jury Directions' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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 a District Court Conviction for Manslaughter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the deceased's police statement under Evidence Act s 65(2)(b)." "Whether the deceased's statement was made when or shortly after the asserted fact occurred." "Whether the circumstances of the making of the deceased's statement made it unlikely that the representations were fabricated." "Whether the trial judge's directions on self defence sufficiently conveyed that the Crown bore the burden of excluding the reasonable possibility that the appellant acted in self defence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because it was open to the trial judge to admit the deceased's statement under Evidence Act s 65(2)(b): the statement was made about 24 hours after the incident and in circumstances, including its formal making to police and the presence of other witnesses, that made fabrication unlikely. The jury directions, read as a whole, sufficiently conveyed that the Crown bore the burden of disproving self defence beyond reasonable doubt and there was no real risk that the jury misunderstood that burden.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.']