Stevens v R [2013] NSWCCA 158

Stevens v R [2013] NSWCCA 158

No material irregularity occurred as the counsel's advice to not cross-examine the complainant on a voir dire was sound, based on logical forensic considerations, and the applicant provided instructions based on informed advice; even if a material irregularity occurred, it did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, as the evidence indicated little likelihood that recalling the complainant would have changed the outcome or uncovered actionable contamination.

Parties
Applicant: John Andrea Stevens; Respondent Crown: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Conviction Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave to Appeal Conviction
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Conviction Appeal, Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, Evidence Contamination, Conduct of Counsel, Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Conviction Appeal Sexual Intercourse Without Consent Evidence Contamination Conduct of Counsel 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Andrea Stevens

Applicant

Regina

Respondent Crown

Procedural Posture

Conviction Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave to Appeal Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial counsel's decision not to cross-examine the complainant on a voir dire led to a material irregularity in the trial
  2. 2 Whether the actions of the support person contaminated the complainant's evidence and whether this amounted to a miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was deprived of a fair trial due to counsel's conduct and advice

Ratio Decidendi

No material irregularity occurred as the counsel's advice to not cross-examine the complainant on a voir dire was sound, based on logical forensic considerations, and the applicant provided instructions based on informed advice; even if a material irregularity occurred, it did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, as the evidence indicated little likelihood that recalling the complainant would have changed the outcome or uncovered actionable contamination.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed.