Webb v R; R v Webb [2012] NSWCCA 216

Webb v R; R v Webb [2012] NSWCCA 216

The Court held there was no error in refusing a permanent stay of proceedings; the potential prejudice to the accused did not reach the exceptional standard required, and available evidence—including DNA and consistent accounts—allowed for a fair trial with proper jury directions. It was error to exclude all evidence relating to Count 2, as the evidence was sufficiently consistent overall and any inconsistencies were matters for the jury; thus, the exclusion was not justified under ss.135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment After Hearing Both Accused and Crown Appeals
Outcome
Mr Webb's appeal dismissed; Crown appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['permanent Stay' 'hearsay Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'abuse of Process' 'cold Case Prosecutions' 'unavailability of Witness' 'prejudice to Accused' 'juror Directions']
['criminal Law'] ['permanent Stay' 'hearsay Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'abuse of Process' 'cold Case Prosecutions' 'unavailability of Witness' 'prejudice to Accused' 'juror Directions']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment After Hearing Both Accused and Crown Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the refusal to grant a permanent stay of prosecution for aggravated sexual assault and related charges was in error' 'Whether the exclusion of evidence relating to the count of attempted anal intercourse was in error under ss.135 or 137 Evidence Act 1995']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held there was no error in refusing a permanent stay of proceedings; the potential prejudice to the accused did not reach the exceptional standard required, and available evidence—including DNA and consistent accounts—allowed for a fair trial with proper jury directions. It was error to exclude all evidence relating to Count 2, as the evidence was sufficiently consistent overall and any inconsistencies were matters for the jury; thus, the exclusion was not justified under ss.135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Mr Webb's appeal dismissed; Crown appeal allowed

Orders

  • ["Mr Webb's appeal is dismissed." 'Crown appeal is allowed.' 'Evidentiary ruling contained in [67] of the decision of his Honour Judge Woods QC of 27 July 2012 is set aside.' "In relation to the Crown appeal, Mr Webb is granted a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if qualified."]