NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION : R v. Michael Leonard REARDON Edgar Hernando MICHAELS Clifford Barry TAYLOR [2002] NSWCCA 203 revised - 20/06/2002 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60419/99; 60537/99; 60365/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 25 October 2001 and 5 April 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 4 June 2002
Regina - respondent PARTIES : Michael Leonard Reardon - appellant (60419/99) Edgar Hernando Michaels - appellant (60357/99) Clifford Barry Taylor - appellant (60365/99) JUDGMENT OF : Hodgson JA at 1; Simpson J at 41; Barr J at 222
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0872; 98/11/0269 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Ainslie-Wallace, DCJ OFFICER :
Mr. S. Corish for Michaels COUNSEL : Mr. P. Byrne SC for Taylor Mr. M. Ramage QC for Reardon Mr. P. Roberts SC for Crown D.J. Humphries, Legal aid Commission, for Reardon SOLICITORS : Horowitz & Bilinsky for Taylor Mark Klees & Associates for Michaels Commonwealth DPP for Crown CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - Juries - Discharge of juror - Whether lawful in absence of jury - Continuing with eleven jurors - Whether discretion miscarried - CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - Leave to cross-examine own witness - Requirements of Evidence Act ss.38 and 192 - Whether express consideration necessary - CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - Warnings - Unreliability of witness - Prejudicial evidence - Discretion to exclude or limit - Fresh evidence. Customs Act 1904 Listening Devices Act 1984 Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED : Jury Act 1977 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) Grey v The Queen [2001] HCA 65 Mickelberg v R (1989) 167 CLR 259 R v Dellapatrona and Duffield (1993) 31 NSWLR 123 R v Drazkiewicz NSWCCA 12/11/93 R v Edwards (1997) 90 ACrimR 516 R v Esho [2001] NSWCA 415 R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 ACrimR 231 R v Irusta [2000] NSWCCA 391 R v Kalpaxis [2001] NSWCCA 119 CASES CITED: R V Paull (1999) NSWLR 427 R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161; 2 A Crim R 45 R v Radju [2001] NSWCCA 103 R v Savvas (No.2) (1991) 58 ACrimR 174 R v Tack Lee Pang (1999) 105 ACrimR 474 R v Taouk (1992) 65 ACrimR 387 R v Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 219 Stanoevski v The Queen [2001] HCA 4; 75 ALJR 454 The Queen v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32 Wu v R [1999] HCA 52; 199 CLR 99 DECISION : All appeals against conviction dismissed. Grant leave to the applicant Reardon to appeal against his sentence and allow the appeal. Quash the non-parole period and fix in lieu a non-parole period of twelve years, which will expire on 22 April 2011. Declare that Reardon will be eligible for release to parole on that day. Grant leave to the applicant Michaels to appeal against his sentence and allow the appeal. Quash the sentence and impose in lieu a sentence of eighteen years' imprisonment commencing on 21 November 1997 and expiring on 20 November 2015. Fix a non-parole period of thirteen years which will expire on 20 November 2010. Declare that Michaels will be eligible for release to parole on that day. Grant leave to the applicant Taylor to appeal against his sentence and allow the appeal. Quash the non-parole period and fix in lieu a non-parole period of eight years which will expire on 20 November 2005. Declare that Taylor will be eligible for release to parole on that day.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate