JD v R [2012] NSWCCA 274

JD v R [2012] NSWCCA 274

The appeal failed because MFI 12 was, at most, of marginal significance; the applicant was not directly challenged on matters that the document could confirm; it contained prejudicial comments about the complainant which had not been put to her and required editing; s 66A did not apply because there was no relevant issue about the applicant's health, feelings, sensations, intention, knowledge or state of mind; s 108 did not assist because there was no relevant prior inconsistent statement or suggestion of fabrication or reconstruction; and the further document was neither shown to be fresh nor new evidence and its non-use caused no injustice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the extent required; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'admission of Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'credibility Evidence' 'fresh Evidence' 'new Evidence' 'alleged Miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'appellate Procedure'] ['conviction Appeal' 'admission of Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'credibility Evidence' 'fresh Evidence' 'new Evidence' 'alleged 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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit MFI 12 unless prejudicial portions were removed.' 'Whether MFI 12 was admissible under s 66A of the Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether MFI 12 was admissible under s 108 of the Evidence Act 1995 to re-establish the applicant's credit." 'Whether another document prepared for family law solicitors should be admitted as fresh or new evidence.' 'Whether the conduct of the trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because MFI 12 was, at most, of marginal significance; the applicant was not directly challenged on matters that the document could confirm; it contained prejudicial comments about the complainant which had not been put to her and required editing; s 66A did not apply because there was no relevant issue about the applicant's health, feelings, sensations, intention, knowledge or state of mind; s 108 did not assist because there was no relevant prior inconsistent statement or suggestion of fabrication or reconstruction; and the further document was neither shown to be fresh nor new evidence and its non-use caused no injustice.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the extent required; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['To the extent that leave to appeal is required, leave is granted but the appeal is dismissed.']