Petch v R [2020] NSWCCA 133

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Petch v R [2020] NSWCCA 133 Hearing dates: 22 May 2020 Date of orders: 19 June 2020 Decision date: 19 June 2020 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Hamill J at [2] Cavanagh J at [110] Decision: (1) Where necessary, grant leave to appeal. (2) Allow the appeal. (3) Quash the conviction and, in lieu thereof, enter a verdict of acquittal. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against conviction – Mayor of Ryde – blackmail – unwarranted demand with menaces – mental element of offence – requirement of mens rea – Model Criminal Code – intention to menace – intention to make an unwarranted demand – intention to issue a threat – whether misdirection as to mental element – statutory construction – use of extrinsic materials – where trial Judge circulated draft directions – where directions accorded with the appellant's submissions at trial – change of approach on appeal – whether rule 4 applies – element of the offence – important question of principle

CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – admission of evidence over objection – lay opinion evidence – where victim permitted to give evidence of appellant's state of mind – notes made by victim – exception to hearsay rule – whether exception extended to note concerning appellant's intention – where opinions stated in absolute terms – where opinion went to central issue in the trial – evidence inadmissible

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – whether re-trial should be ordered – where verdict not unreasonable – where appellant served most of Intensive Corrections Order – where appellant elderly – verdict of acquittal entered Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Pt 4B, ss 249K, 249L, 249M Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 87 Crimes Amendment Act 2007 (NSW), ch 1 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 6, 8 Criminal Appeal Rules 1912 (NSW), r 4 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), ss 3.1, 5.1, 5.6, 138.1, 138.2, 139.1, 139.2 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 62, 66, 76, 78, 131 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 34 Theft Act 1968 (UK), s 21 Cases Cited: Benasic v R (1987) 77 ALR 340 Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71 Castagna v R; Agius v R [2019] NSWCCA 114 Connolly v Willis [1984] 1 NSWLR 373 Cranbrook School v Woollahra Council (2006) 66 NSWLR 379; [2006] NSWCA 155 Gerakiteys v R (1984) 153 CLR 317; 51 ALR 417 Gibb v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1966) 118 CLR 628 at 635; [1966] HCA 74 Guo v R [2020] NSWCCA 40 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; [1985] HCA 43 King v R (1986) 161 CLR 423; 67 ALR 379 Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352; [2011] HCA 36 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Maroubra Rugby League Football Club Inc v Malo (2007) 69 NSWLR 496; [2007] NSWCA 39 McLaren v Chief of Navy [2013] ADFDAT 5 Partington v R [2009] NSWCCA 232 Patrick v The Queen (2014) 42 VR 651; [2014] VSCA 89 Pell v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 394; [2020] HCA 12 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 R v Clear [1968] 1 QB 670 R v Honeysett (1987) 10 NSWLR 638 R v Lambert [2010] 1 Cr App R 299; [2009] EWCA Crim 2860 R v Taufahema (2007) 228 CLR 232; [2007] HCA 11 R v Whyte [2006] NSWCCA 75 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13 Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650; [2001] HCA 50 Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132 Wilson v Anderson (2002) 213 CLR 401; [2002] HCA 29 Texts Cited: Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Model Criminal Code Final Report, (December 1995) Chapter 3 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ivan John Petch (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: H Dhanji SC; P English (Applicant) E Wilkin SC (Respondent)