Patterson v. Regina (Cwlth) [2001] NSWCCA 316

Patterson v. Regina (Cwlth) [2001] NSWCCA 316

The appeal against conviction failed because the deposition was admissible under Criminal Procedure Act s.112, any failure to warn the jury about not seeing Yarrow was minor and would attract the proviso, no Edwards or Zoneff lies direction was required because the alleged lies went directly to the essential issue...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; head sentence confirmed; non-parole period reduced.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'importation of Prohibited Imports' 'hearsay' 'committal Depositions' 'lies Directions' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'importation of Prohibited Imports' 'hearsay' 'committal Depositions' 'lies Directions' 'non Parole Period']

Source-derived case record

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 Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a committal deposition from Federal agent Yarrow was admissible when the witness was absent from Australia and the Crown had not taken steps to secure his attendance.' 'Whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury about the use of the deposition, alleged consciousness of guilt, flight and alleged lies by the appellant.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in refusing applications to cross-examine or recall Federal agents about where the letter signed by George was found.' 'Whether criticism of defence counsel by the trial judge caused appealable error.' 'Whether the sentence, and particularly the non-parole period, involved error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction failed because the deposition was admissible under Criminal Procedure Act s.112, any failure to warn the jury about not seeing Yarrow was minor and would attract the proviso, no Edwards or Zoneff lies direction was required because the alleged lies went directly to the essential issue of knowledge, and the remaining complaints about witness recall and judicial criticism did not disclose appealable error. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because the non-parole period was excessive in principle when the credit for prior incarceration and the proportion of the non-parole period were considered; the head sentence was not shown to be erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; head sentence confirmed; non-parole period reduced.

Orders

  • ['The appeal against conviction is dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.' 'The head sentence is confirmed.' 'The specification of the non parole period is set aside.' 'In lieu thereof the Court substitutes a non parole period of four years commencing 17 May 2000, to expire on 16 May 2004.']