R v Tisdell [2003] NSWCCA 60
Appellant's conviction quashed as key evidence was admitted to be false and sworn to in court.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 March 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; order of acquittal be entered.
- Legal Topics
- ['false Testimony' 'sexual Assault' 'quashing Conviction' 'appeal']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether conviction should be quashed due to admission that evidence given at trial was false']
Ratio Decidendi
Appellant's conviction quashed as key evidence was admitted to be false and sworn to in court.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; order of acquittal be entered.
Orders
- ['Appeal allowed' 'Conviction quashed' 'Order of acquittal be entered']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION : R v Tisdell [2003] NSWCCA 60 HEARING DATE(S) : 12/03/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 12 March 2003
JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1, 8; Dowd J at 6; Barr J at 7 DECISION : 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Conviction quashed; 3. Order of acquittal be entered.
CATCHWORDS : Admission that evidence given at trial was false - quashing of conviction. Regina PARTIES : v Tisdell FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60491 of 2002 COUNSEL : A: P M Paish R: P G Ingram SOLICITORS : A: Freemans R: S E O'Connor
LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 97/21/0217 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Ainslie-Wallace DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CCA 60491 of 2002
MEAGHER JA DOWD J BARR J
Wednesday, 12 March 2003 REGINA v TISDELL Judgment 1 MEAGHER JA: The appellant, Mr Shane Tisdell, was arraigned on 10 September 1998 on six counts of sexual assault sexual intercourse without consent with a certain LT, his half sister. He pleaded not guilty to all six counts. 2 At the trial which followed, the jury found him guilty on five counts and not guilty on one count. Thereafter, her Honour Judge Ainsley-Moss, sentenced him to a concurrent term of imprisonment of eight years in relation to all five counts. He has now served over four years of that sentence. 3 In the trial Miss T's evidence was virtually, but not entirely, the only evidence against the appellant, in October 2002 Miss T approached the police and informed them that: a. Her evidence in the trial was false; and
b. The appellant had never in her life had sexual intercourse with her.
4 She has sworn to that effect before this Court today. 5 It is not our business to decide which version of the facts is correct, although if we had to decide the matter I, for my part, would accept her retraction. On any test, in these circumstances, the appeal should succeed and Mr Tisdell's convictions be quashed. That, in my view, should be the order of the Court, and any extension of time to appeal should, of course, be granted. 6 DOWD J: I agree, and if I had to decide the matter I would also accept the retraction of LT. 7 BARR J: I am of the same view on the facts. I agree for the reasons given by the presiding judge that the appeal should be allowed, the convictions quashed and the verdicts of acquittal entered. 8 MEAGHER JA: The orders of the Court therefore are appeal allowed, conviction quashed, order of acquittal be entered.
******
Last Modified: 03/28/2003 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.