Bryant v R [2011] NSWCCA 26

Bryant v R [2011] NSWCCA 26

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err in refusing separate trials or in admitting the tendency, coincidence and circumstantial evidence; the evidence relating to the appellant's arrest, the Mittagong robbery and the other offences provided a sufficient basis for the joint trial and for the jury to consider the counts together. The alleged admissions to the custody manager were not made in the course of official questioning for s 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, and the various alleged misstatements, omissions, evidentiary complaints and summing-up errors did not individually or cumulatively cause a miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions After a District Court Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'separate Trials' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'uncharged Offences' 'admissions' 'official Questioning' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'directed Acquittal']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'separate Trials' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'uncharged Offences' 'admissions' 'official Questioning' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'directed Acquittal']

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 Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions After a District Court Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing separate trials of the counts on the indictment.' 'Whether evidence relating to other counts and uncharged offences was admissible as tendency, coincidence or circumstantial evidence.' 'Whether alleged misstatements by the prosecutor, defence counsel or trial judge caused a miscarriage of justice.' 'Whether evidence of alleged admissions to a custody manager was inadmissible under s 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to direct acquittals on counts 1 and 7.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err in refusing separate trials or in admitting the tendency, coincidence and circumstantial evidence; the evidence relating to the appellant's arrest, the Mittagong robbery and the other offences provided a sufficient basis for the joint trial and for the jury to consider the counts together. The alleged admissions to the custody manager were not made in the course of official questioning for s 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, and the various alleged misstatements, omissions, evidentiary complaints and summing-up errors did not individually or cumulatively cause a miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']