CHAND v R [2011] NSWCCA 53

CHAND v R [2011] NSWCCA 53

Although the COPS material should not have been admitted because its probative value as motive evidence was outweighed by its unfair prejudicial effect and the jury received no limiting direction on its use, the other grounds of appeal were not made out or leave was refused under rule 4. On the whole of the evidence, including overwhelming evidence that the collision occurred on the appellant's incorrect side of the road and an objective basis for finding recklessness, the Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the statutory alternative offence and that no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred. The proviso in s6(1) of the Criminal...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['reckless Wounding' 'jury Directions' 'complaint Evidence' 'motive Evidence' 'alternative Statutory Count' 'unfair Prejudice' 'criminal Appeal Proviso']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['reckless Wounding' 'jury Directions' 'complaint Evidence' 'motive Evidence' 'alternative Statutory Count' 'unfair Prejudice' 'criminal Appeal Proviso']

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 Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge failed to adequately put the defence case to the jury.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury regarding the effective cause of the collision.' "Whether evidence of conversations recorded in Constable Girdham's notebook was admissible." 'Whether leaving the alternative statutory count of reckless wounding to the jury rendered the trial unfair.' 'Whether COPS material was admissible as motive evidence or should have been excluded under ss135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the trial judge was required to give directions about motive and the use of the COPS material.' 'Whether the proviso in s6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 should be applied despite wrongful admission of the COPS material.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the COPS material should not have been admitted because its probative value as motive evidence was outweighed by its unfair prejudicial effect and the jury received no limiting direction on its use, the other grounds of appeal were not made out or leave was refused under rule 4. On the whole of the evidence, including overwhelming evidence that the collision occurred on the appellant's incorrect side of the road and an objective basis for finding recklessness, the Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the statutory alternative offence and that no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred. The proviso in s6(1) of the Criminal...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']