R v. HEUSTON [2003] NSWCCA 172

R v. HEUSTON [2003] NSWCCA 172

The appeal was allowed because the new material would have permitted a very powerful challenge to the police evidence, including a strong case that officers from Major Crime Squad North had taken weapons to Coffs Harbour with a view to planting them and that at least Detective Fabris was prepared to give perjured evidence, invent verbals and plant evidence. Although the signed notebook, Sergeant Smith's evidence and the Mulhollands' identification evidence remained strong evidence, there was a significant possibility that a reasonable jury would not have relied on the police evidence, would have been more sceptical of the other evidence, and would not have convicted. The remaining Crown...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction; Attorney General Reference Dealt With as Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered; sentences imposed on 7 June 1996 backdated to commence on 9 March 1993.
Legal Topics
['review of Conviction' 'fresh Evidence' 'police Corruption Evidence' 'delay in Complaint' 'longman Direction' 'identification Evidence' 'new Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['review of Conviction' 'fresh Evidence' 'police Corruption Evidence' 'delay in Complaint' 'longman Direction' 'identification Evidence' 'new Trial']

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; Attorney General Reference Dealt With as Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether fresh evidence from the Police Royal Commission, internal police investigation and Police Integrity Commission demonstrated that the convictions were a miscarriage of justice.' 'Whether the trial miscarried because the trial judge failed to direct the jury about the significance of delay in the complaint by Stephen and Deborah Mulholland.' "Whether the Crown Prosecutor's submission asking why Mr and Mrs Mulholland would falsely identify the accused occasioned a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the appropriate result was an acquittal or a new trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the new material would have permitted a very powerful challenge to the police evidence, including a strong case that officers from Major Crime Squad North had taken weapons to Coffs Harbour with a view to planting them and that at least Detective Fabris was prepared to give perjured evidence, invent verbals and plant evidence. Although the signed notebook, Sergeant Smith's evidence and the Mulhollands' identification evidence remained strong evidence, there was a significant possibility that a reasonable jury would not have relied on the police evidence, would have been more sceptical of the other evidence, and would not have convicted. The remaining Crown...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered; sentences imposed on 7 June 1996 backdated to commence on 9 March 1993.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Convictions quashed.' 'New trial ordered.' 'Sentences imposed on 7 June 1996 backdated so as to have commenced on 9 March 1993.']