R v Stevens [2001] NSWCCA 330

R v Stevens [2001] NSWCCA 330

The conviction was open on the evidence because the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the altercation occurred as the Crown alleged, and the Court's independent assessment left no disquiet about the guilty verdict. The allegations of witness coaching were unsupported and reflected permissible refreshing of memory or proper s 38 applications. No miscarriage of justice arose from granting leave to cross-examine Gamble and Fawcett because no material s 192 consideration was shown to have affected the discretion. The Crown was not obliged on the circumstances shown to call Mrs Stevenson and Miss Stevenson. The sentence was not shown to involve error or manifest excess given...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal After District Court Jury Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm' 'supplying a Prohibited Drug' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'witness Coaching Allegation' 'refreshing Memory From Statements' 'unfavourable Witnesses Under S 38 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'leave Under S 192 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'crown Obligation to Call Witnesses' 'cumulative Sentences' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm' 'supplying a Prohibited Drug' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'witness Coaching Allegation' 'refreshing Memory From Statements' 'unfavourable Witnesses Under S 38 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'leave Under S 192 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'crown Obligation to Call Witnesses' 'cumulative Sentences' 'manifest Excess']

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 and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal After District Court Jury Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the conviction for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm was unreasonable having regard to the evidence.' 'Whether Crown witnesses were coached or improperly permitted to refresh, revise or plan their evidence from statements.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in granting leave under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine Crown witnesses Gamble and Fawcett without proper consideration of s 192.' 'Whether the Crown was obliged to call Mrs Stevenson and Miss Stevenson in the Crown case or make them available for cross-examination.' 'Whether the sentences, including the five year cumulative term for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm, were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was open on the evidence because the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the altercation occurred as the Crown alleged, and the Court's independent assessment left no disquiet about the guilty verdict. The allegations of witness coaching were unsupported and reflected permissible refreshing of memory or proper s 38 applications. No miscarriage of justice arose from granting leave to cross-examine Gamble and Fawcett because no material s 192 consideration was shown to have affected the discretion. The Crown was not obliged on the circumstances shown to call Mrs Stevenson and Miss Stevenson. The sentence was not shown to involve error or manifest excess given...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']