Selby v R [2017] NSWCCA 40

Selby v R [2017] NSWCCA 40

The similarities between the incidents made coincidence reasoning available to the jury notwithstanding asserted dissimilarities, and the summing up, read as a whole and in light of the written coincidence direction and the absence of objection, did not direct the jury to use coincidence evidence impermissibly to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted only to the extent necessary on ground 2; otherwise leave refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['coincidence Evidence' 'identification Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'demanding Money With Menaces' 'intimidation' 'criminal Appeal Rules R 4']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['coincidence Evidence' 'identification Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'demanding Money With Menaces' 'intimidation' 'criminal Appeal Rules R 4']

Source-derived case record

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that coincidence evidence could be used to corroborate identification evidence.' 'Whether it was open on the evidence for Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 98 to be engaged despite asserted dissimilarities between the July and October incidents.' 'Whether leave under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules should be granted where no objection was taken to the impugned direction at trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The similarities between the incidents made coincidence reasoning available to the jury notwithstanding asserted dissimilarities, and the summing up, read as a whole and in light of the written coincidence direction and the absence of objection, did not direct the jury to use coincidence evidence impermissibly to bolster flawed identification evidence. No error warranting appellate intervention was shown, and r 4 leave was refused for ground 1.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted only to the extent necessary on ground 2; otherwise leave refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal, confined to ground 2 of the notice of appeal supplied to the Court on 27 February 2017, and otherwise refuse leave.' 'Appeal dismissed.']