May v R [2024] NSWDC 318

May v R [2024] NSWDC 318

The improper seizure of the mobile phone did not justify exclusion of the evidence, as the desirability of admitting highly probative and essential evidence relating to serious criminal conduct outweighed the undesirability due to the inadvertent nature of the contravention. The Appellant's and Mr Doolan's actions amounted to affray: the extreme, indiscriminate, and brutal violence towards a helpless victim in a public place was such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety. The Magistrate’s findings were supported by the evidence and were not in error. The appeal is dismissed and the conviction is confirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Conviction Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Conviction confirmed.
Legal Topics
['affray' 'evidence Admissibility' 'appellate Review' 'public Order Offences']
['criminal Law'] ['affray' 'evidence Admissibility' 'appellate Review' 'public Order Offences']

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 / Conviction Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Magistrate erred in admitting evidence improperly seized (the mobile phone)' "Whether the Magistrate erred in finding the Appellant's conduct amounted to 'affray' under s.93C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)"]

Ratio Decidendi

The improper seizure of the mobile phone did not justify exclusion of the evidence, as the desirability of admitting highly probative and essential evidence relating to serious criminal conduct outweighed the undesirability due to the inadvertent nature of the contravention. The Appellant's and Mr Doolan's actions amounted to affray: the extreme, indiscriminate, and brutal violence towards a helpless victim in a public place was such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety. The Magistrate’s findings were supported by the evidence and were not in error. The appeal is dismissed and the conviction is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Conviction confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal against conviction is dismissed.' 'The finding of guilt for the offence of affray is confirmed.']