R v Knight [2005] NSWCCA 241

R v Knight [2005] NSWCCA 241

The grounds of appeal relating to the admission of Rose's evidence, the failure to give a s 165 warning, and the absence of direction on motive were not made out. The evidence was admissible, no judicial warning was required, and the judge did not err in addressing the issue of motive. There was no miscarriage of justice. The sentence, though heavy, was within the judge’s discretion given the seriousness of the crime. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence appeals were both dismissed.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Mark Dempsey Knight
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Summing Up, Absence of Motive, Circumstantial Case, Evidence of Bias, Hearsay, S165 Warning, Admissibility of Evidence, Sentencing, Murder in Custody
Criminal Law Summing Up Absence of Motive Circumstantial Case Evidence of Bias Hearsay S165 Warning Admissibility of Evidence +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Mark Dempsey Knight

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence from a witness (Rose) about the deceased's state of mind and complaints about koori prisoners
  2. 2 Whether failure to give a s 165 Evidence Act warning regarding possible bias of witness deprived the appellant of a fair trial
  3. 3 Whether failure to give a direction regarding alleged absence of motive constituted a miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds of appeal relating to the admission of Rose's evidence, the failure to give a s 165 warning, and the absence of direction on motive were not made out. The evidence was admissible, no judicial warning was required, and the judge did not err in addressing the issue of motive. There was no miscarriage of justice. The sentence, though heavy, was within the judge’s discretion given the seriousness of the crime. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence appeals were both dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • Leave to appeal against sentence is granted but the appeal is dismissed.