Regina v Covill [2000] NSWCCA 231

Regina v Covill [2000] NSWCCA 231

A new trial was ordered for one offence as the judge’s jury directions regarding the appellant’s election not to give evidence were erroneous, contrary to binding authority and statute. Other grounds raised regarding directions on unreliable witness evidence, self-defence, and improper cross-examination were properly addressed by the judge or did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The jury’s verdict on the second malicious wounding charge was open on the evidence and not unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence From the District Court to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Conviction on first trial quashed with a new trial ordered; appeal against conviction for second trial dismissed; sentences quashed and resentencing ordered in District Court.
Legal Topics
['malicious Wounding' 'conviction Appeal' 'sentence Appeal' 'judicial Directions' 'self Defence' 'unreliable Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'onus of Proof']
['criminal Law'] ['malicious Wounding' 'conviction Appeal' 'sentence Appeal' 'judicial Directions' 'self Defence' 'unreliable Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'onus of Proof']

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 / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence From the District Court to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether jury directions regarding the appellant's election not to give evidence were erroneous under s 20 of Evidence Act and RPS v The Queen" 'Whether the judge erred in refusing directions concerning unreliability of particular evidence under s 165 of the Evidence Act' 'Whether the judge erred in declining to give a direction as to an alternative case of self-defence' 'Whether a miscarriage of justice resulted from cross-examination about a Crown witness’s motivation to lie' 'Whether the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

A new trial was ordered for one offence as the judge’s jury directions regarding the appellant’s election not to give evidence were erroneous, contrary to binding authority and statute. Other grounds raised regarding directions on unreliable witness evidence, self-defence, and improper cross-examination were properly addressed by the judge or did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The jury’s verdict on the second malicious wounding charge was open on the evidence and not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Conviction on first trial quashed with a new trial ordered; appeal against conviction for second trial dismissed; sentences quashed and resentencing ordered in District Court.

Orders

  • ["As to the first trial: (1) On the Crown's concession allow the appeal; (2) Set aside the conviction and quash the sentence; (3) Order a new trial." 'As to the second trial: (1) Dismiss the appeal against conviction; (2) Grant leave to appeal against sentence and remaining sentences; (3) Quash all the sentences;...