REGINA v. KNIGHT (aka BLACK) [2001] NSWCCA 114

REGINA v. KNIGHT (aka BLACK) [2001] NSWCCA 114

There was no impropriety or contravention of law in obtaining the handwriting samples under s.353A(3) and (3D) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); as such, s.138 of the Evidence Act did not require exclusion of the evidence; the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised and there was no legal error justifying appellate intervention.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: John Adrian Knight (aka David Black)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing of Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Handwriting Samples, Identification Evidence, Improperly Obtained Evidence, Statutory Authority to Require Handwriting Samples, Public Policy Discretion, Privilege Against Self Incrimination
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Handwriting Samples Identification Evidence Improperly Obtained Evidence Statutory Authority to Require Handwriting Samples Public Policy Discretion Privilege Against Self Incrimination

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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

John Adrian Knight (aka David Black)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing of Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether handwriting samples (P59B forms) obtained from the accused in custody were improperly obtained and inadmissible under s.138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the accused should have been cautioned as to the use of handwriting samples
  3. 3 Whether the obtaining of handwriting samples amounted to an admission requiring a caution under s.139 of the Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

There was no impropriety or contravention of law in obtaining the handwriting samples under s.353A(3) and (3D) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); as such, s.138 of the Evidence Act did not require exclusion of the evidence; the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised and there was no legal error justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed