TIMMIS, Michael Anthony v R [2013] NSWCCA 240

TIMMIS, Michael Anthony v R [2013] NSWCCA 240

Leave to appeal was granted, but each ground failed. Goulding's evidence would not have assisted the applicant; the jury was entitled to accept the informer evidence supported by surveillance; the s 128 certificates were not invalid because the police officer and informer were not defendants; the alleged non-disclosure and destruction of material did not show relevance or miscarriage; the edited recordings had been available to the applicant's representatives and editing was completed in the trial process; and the trial judge's s 138 admission of evidence disclosed no error. Accordingly the conviction appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['controlled Operation' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'disclosure of Evidence' 'conviction Appeal' 'electronic Surveillance' 'informer Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['controlled Operation' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'disclosure of Evidence' 'conviction Appeal' 'electronic Surveillance' 'informer Evidence']

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 Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown's failure to call Ronald Goulding caused a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the informer gave false or misleading evidence and whether police or informer conduct amounted to improper conduct or abuse of power.' 'Whether evidence connected with the controlled operation, including the supply of balaclavas and a motor vehicle, should have been excluded as illegally obtained.' 'Whether certificates granted under s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 to Detective Senior Constable Walsh and the informer were invalid because they were said to be defendants in the proceedings.' 'Whether a recording of a 20 March 2009 conversation misled the jury because it was not played in full.' 'Whether non-disclosure or destruction of telephone intercepts, listening device recordings and SMS material caused a miscarriage of justice or involved an attempt to pervert the course of justice.' 'Whether edited electronic surveillance recordings amounted to false, misleading, tampered or fraudulent evidence being presented to the jury.' "Whether the trial judge erred in admitting police and informer evidence despite the applicant's challenge to the Controlled Operations Certificate." 'Whether alleged unreliability or perjury by the informer, and alleged failure by trial counsel to follow instructions in cross-examination, caused a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted, but each ground failed. Goulding's evidence would not have assisted the applicant; the jury was entitled to accept the informer evidence supported by surveillance; the s 128 certificates were not invalid because the police officer and informer were not defendants; the alleged non-disclosure and destruction of material did not show relevance or miscarriage; the edited recordings had been available to the applicant's representatives and editing was completed in the trial process; and the trial judge's s 138 admission of evidence disclosed no error. Accordingly the conviction appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal but appeal dismissed.']