GAR v R (No 3) [2010] NSWCCA 165

GAR v R (No 3) [2010] NSWCCA 165

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal failed because the matters raised about AR's possible bias and concoction were plainly before the jury and within ordinary jury experience, the evidence was not shown to be of a kind requiring a s 165 warning, no request was made for a warning about the baton, and no injustice arose from the absence of such a warning. The asserted fresh evidence did not establish that ER fabricated evidence or procured E to do so. The evidence against the appellant, including opportunity, absence from his residence, possession of cash bundled like the stolen money, access to a baton, possession of a stolen laptop, and the evidence of ER and AR, was overwhelming,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction; Appeal Determined by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery With Wounding' 'jury Warnings' 's 165 Evidence Act 1995' 'fresh Evidence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'child Witness Bias']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Appeals'] ['armed Robbery With Wounding' 'jury Warnings' 's 165 Evidence Act 1995' 'fresh Evidence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'child Witness Bias']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction; Appeal Determined by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to give a warning under s 165 of the Evidence Act 1995, or otherwise, concerning the evidence of AR.' "Whether a warning was required concerning AR's identification of the baton and evidence about money." "Whether fresh evidence concerning ER's alleged fabrication or procurement of false evidence gave rise to a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the jury verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal failed because the matters raised about AR's possible bias and concoction were plainly before the jury and within ordinary jury experience, the evidence was not shown to be of a kind requiring a s 165 warning, no request was made for a warning about the baton, and no injustice arose from the absence of such a warning. The asserted fresh evidence did not establish that ER fabricated evidence or procured E to do so. The evidence against the appellant, including opportunity, absence from his residence, possession of cash bundled like the stolen money, access to a baton, possession of a stolen laptop, and the evidence of ER and AR, was overwhelming,...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']