Regina v Hemmelstein [2001] NSWCCA 220

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Hemmelstein [2001] NSWCCA 220 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60553/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 06/03/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 June 2001

Regina PARTIES : v Joel Mark Hemmelstein JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Hulme J at 13; Smart AJ at 19

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0756 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Kinchington DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Applicant: Mr S Odgers Crown: Mr C O'Donnell SOLICITORS : Applicant: Legal Aid Commission Crown: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions CATCHWORDS : Criminal law - application for leave to appeal against conviction - knowingly importing a commercial quantity of cocaine - wrongful exclusion of evidence - relevance and admissibility of evidence - appeal dismissed. LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995, ss 55, 65 (1),(8)(a), 72, 165 (1)(a) Customs Act 1901, s233B CASES CITED: Sugden v Lord St Leonards (1876) LR 1 PD 154 Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 DECISION : Application dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60553/99

MEAGHER JA HULME JA SMART AJ

REGINA v JOEL MARK HEMMELSTEIN JUDGMENT FACTS H was convicted of knowingly importing a commercial quantity of cocaine and sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. The appellant relied on three grounds of appeal, all relating to the exclusion of evidence at trial. The first ground was that the trial judge wrongfully excluded evidence of out of court representations made by H to his brother as to his intention to play golf in Australia. The second ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in excluding a note written by H's solicitor, Mr Murphy, regarding a Mr Simonds. The third ground was that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence from H's brother concerning a telephone call.