R v. Clark [2002] NSWCCA 16

R v. Clark [2002] NSWCCA 16

The appeal was allowed because the truth or otherwise of what the appellant said to Christie DCJ about Senior Constable Smoothy, although not an element of the offence, was centrally relevant to whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt an intention to pervert the course of justice. The trial judge wrongly told the jury it was irrelevant and failed to put the substance of the appellant's defence, and those errors may have affected the verdict. A new trial was not required in the interests of justice given the particular circumstances, including that the conduct was done openly and nearly half the sentence had been served.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
['act Intending to Pervert the Course of Justice' 'intent' 'summing Up to Jury' 'admissibility of Representations' 'new Trial Discretion']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['act Intending to Pervert the Course of Justice' 'intent' 'summing Up to Jury' 'admissibility of Representations' 'new Trial Discretion']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that the truth or otherwise of the appellant's statement about what Senior Constable Smoothy said was irrelevant." "Whether the trial judge failed to put the substance of the appellant's defence to the jury." 'Whether errors in the summing up may have affected the result of the trial.' 'Whether a new trial should be ordered under s.8(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the truth or otherwise of what the appellant said to Christie DCJ about Senior Constable Smoothy, although not an element of the offence, was centrally relevant to whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt an intention to pervert the course of justice. The trial judge wrongly told the jury it was irrelevant and failed to put the substance of the appellant's defence, and those errors may have affected the verdict. A new trial was not required in the interests of justice given the particular circumstances, including that the conduct was done openly and nearly half the sentence had been served.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' 'Conviction quashed.' 'Verdict of acquittal entered.']