MILLER v TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD [1993] NSWCA 181

MILLER v TCN CHANNEL NINE PTY LTD [1993] NSWCA 181

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's finding of guilt was justified on the basis of credible voice identification and strong circumstantial evidence, and there was no reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. No relevant error in law was shown, nor did the matters raised regarding fresh evidence justify a new trial or reversal of findings.

Parties
Appellant: Miller; Respondent: TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 1993
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Determination of Appeal on Question of Guilt (contempt of Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Voice Identification, Evidentiary Onus, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Standard of Proof in Contempt Proceedings, Circumstantial Evidence
Contempt of Court Defamation Evidence Voice Identification Evidentiary Onus Fresh Evidence on Appeal Standard of Proof in Contempt Proceedings Circumstantial 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miller

Appellant

TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Determination of Appeal on Question of Guilt (contempt of Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hunt J erred in his reasoning regarding the onus of proof and application of evidentiary onus in contempt proceedings
  2. 2 Whether Hunt J erred in his analysis of the evidence concerning identification of the appellant as the maker of the telephone calls and poster of threatening material
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence ought be admitted on appeal and whether any factual error justified a new trial

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's finding of guilt was justified on the basis of credible voice identification and strong circumstantial evidence, and there was no reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. No relevant error in law was shown, nor did the matters raised regarding fresh evidence justify a new trial or reversal of findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs.