Regina v Wilfred Lawson REID [1999] NSWCCA 355

Regina v Wilfred Lawson REID [1999] NSWCCA 355

Howie DCJ erred because, once Mr Becchio accepted Mr Reid's proposal to give false evidence, Mr Becchio became a person intended to be called as a witness within s.323(a), and the later acts of instructing him about the evidence, discussing the collision scene, and arranging for a solicitor's statement were acts intended to procure a witness to give false evidence and therefore fell within s.323(a).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Case Stated Pursuant to Section 5 B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Court of Criminal Appeal Opinion on Question Stated by District Court Judge
Outcome
Question answered yes; proceedings remitted to the District Court with that expression of opinion.
Legal Topics
['case Stated' 'crimes Act 1900 (nsw) S.323(a)' 'person Called or to Be Called as a Witness' 'interference With Witnesses' 'subornation of Perjury']
['criminal Law'] ['case Stated' 'crimes Act 1900 (nsw) S.323(a)' 'person Called or to Be Called as a Witness' 'interference With Witnesses' 'subornation of Perjury']

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

Case Stated Pursuant to Section 5 B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Court of Criminal Appeal Opinion on Question Stated by District Court Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Howie DCJ erred in law in concluding that at the relevant time Mr Becchio was not a person to be called as a witness in a judicial proceeding for the purposes of s.323(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).' 'Whether a person may be a person to be called as a witness for s.323(a) when the accused intends to call that person to give false evidence and the person agrees to do so.']

Ratio Decidendi

Howie DCJ erred because, once Mr Becchio accepted Mr Reid's proposal to give false evidence, Mr Becchio became a person intended to be called as a witness within s.323(a), and the later acts of instructing him about the evidence, discussing the collision scene, and arranging for a solicitor's statement were acts intended to procure a witness to give false evidence and therefore fell within s.323(a).

Court Disposition

Question answered yes; proceedings remitted to the District Court with that expression of opinion.

Orders

  • ['The question stated by Howie DCJ is answered: yes.' 'The stated case is remitted to Howie DCJ with that expression of opinion.']