Flood-Smith v R [2018] NSWCCA 103

Flood-Smith v R [2018] NSWCCA 103

The medical evidence overwhelmingly excluded accidental causes for the child's injuries and supported deliberate infliction involving multiple impacts on multiple body planes. Circumstantial evidence demonstrated the applicant was the only person in a position to inflict the injuries, and hypotheses as to alternative perpetrators were speculative and unsupported. No miscarriage of justice occurred in admission of equivocal statements as potential admissions, and the directions given were sufficient. Accordingly, the conviction was reasonably open to the jury on the totality of evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Conviction Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Leave to rely upon Ground of Appeal 1 refused; leave to appeal on Ground 2 granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'recklessly Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'admissibility of Admissions' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['conviction Appeal' 'recklessly Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'admissibility of Admissions' 'unreasonable Verdict' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Conviction Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of admissions was wrongly admitted under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether conviction was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The medical evidence overwhelmingly excluded accidental causes for the child's injuries and supported deliberate infliction involving multiple impacts on multiple body planes. Circumstantial evidence demonstrated the applicant was the only person in a position to inflict the injuries, and hypotheses as to alternative perpetrators were speculative and unsupported. No miscarriage of justice occurred in admission of equivocal statements as potential admissions, and the directions given were sufficient. Accordingly, the conviction was reasonably open to the jury on the totality of evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to rely upon Ground of Appeal 1 refused; leave to appeal on Ground 2 granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to rely upon Ground of Appeal 1 is refused.' 'Leave to appeal on Ground 2 is granted but the appeal is dismissed.']