R v HUDD [1999] NSWCCA 382

R v HUDD [1999] NSWCCA 382

The appeal was dismissed because it was not reasonably possible that a jury having the benefit of the proposed fresh evidence about Sergeant Nomchong might have acquitted the appellant. The Crown case was overwhelming even without Sergeant Nomchong's evidence, was supported by extensive independent evidence and documents linked to the appellant, and there was no proper basis for the assertion that Sergeant Nomchong forged the documents and organised false evidence. His later 1994 dishonest conduct did not permit an inference that he was dishonest in 1989, and the Royal Commission allegation had little substance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction Referred Under S 474 E(1)(b) Crimes Act After Application for Inquiry Under S 474 D Crimes Act / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal on Fresh Evidence Ground
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'credibility of Crown Witness' 'conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'credibility of Crown Witness' 'conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction Referred Under S 474 E(1)(b) Crimes Act After Application for Inquiry Under S 474 D Crimes Act / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal on Fresh Evidence Ground

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the unavailability at trial of fresh evidence concerning Crown witness Sergeant Nomchong led to a miscarriage of justice.' "Whether there was a reasonable possibility that a jury with the benefit of evidence of Sergeant Nomchong's later conviction and Royal Commission allegations might have acquitted the appellant." "Whether the Crown case depended on Sergeant Nomchong's evidence such that discrediting him could undermine the conviction."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because it was not reasonably possible that a jury having the benefit of the proposed fresh evidence about Sergeant Nomchong might have acquitted the appellant. The Crown case was overwhelming even without Sergeant Nomchong's evidence, was supported by extensive independent evidence and documents linked to the appellant, and there was no proper basis for the assertion that Sergeant Nomchong forged the documents and organised false evidence. His later 1994 dishonest conduct did not permit an inference that he was dishonest in 1989, and the Royal Commission allegation had little substance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']