R v MARTIN [2002] NSWCCA 290

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v MARTIN [2002] NSWCCA 290 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60897/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 11 July 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 23 July 2002

PARTIES : Appellant - Peter Leslie Martin Respondent - Crown JUDGMENT OF : Sheller JA at 1; Dowd J at 70; Carruthers AJ at 71

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/51/0016 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Ducker DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : A J Bellanto QC - Appellant P J Power - Crown SOLICITORS : James Fuggle - Appellant S E O'Connor - Crown CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL APPEAL - application for extension of time to appeal - appeal against conviction - whether verdict was unsafe - Grevious bodily harm - blood DNA evidence - explanation for presence of blood - alibi - evidence of good character - confession evidence LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Appeal Act 1912 CASES CITED: R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82 DECISION : Extend the time to appeal up to and including the date of the filing of the notice of appeal.; Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60897 of 2001

SHELLER JA DOWD J CARRUTHERS AJ REGINA v Peter Leslie MARTIN Judgment The appellant applied for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction on 28 September 2001 by a jury in the District Court in Lismore on two charges. The first charge was that on 3 July 1998 he maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm upon Gary Edwards with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The second charge was that on the same date he maliciously wounded Eli Edwards with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Both charges arose from the appellant's involvement with two other men in an attack on Gary and Eli Edwards. One of the assailants, Colin Stevens, was subsequently convicted for his role in instituting and coordinating the attack. The appellant denied that he had been involved in the incident. The appellant was arrested after the police identified his blood on a bat used in the assaults and on the inside of the left shoe which was worn by Stevens during the assaults. The appellant sought to explain the presence of his blood on these articles by arguing that the blood must have been spilt during the afternoon of the day of the assaults after a wound he had sustained to his left index finger on the day prior had bled when he accompanied Stevens to Stevens's farm. The appellant relied on this explanation; an alibi which was supported by his wife; the uncontested evidence of his good character; and the evidence of Stevens, who named two other men as the people who accompanied him to commit the assaults. The Crown case was based on the blood/DNA evidence and the testimony of the appellant's former business partner who claimed that the appellant had made confessions to him as to his involvement in the attacks. The appellant challenged the reliability of the evidence of his former business partner on the basis that the animosity between them was such that his evidence was untruthful. It was argued on appeal that the verdict was unsafe in that the jury should have found reasonable doubt in relation to the guilt of the appellant. HELD (per Sheller JA, Dowd J and Carruthers AJ concurring) 3. The appellant's attack on the verdict amounted to no more than saying that the Crown's case could not safely and beyond reasonable doubt be accepted in preference to the appellant's denial that he took part in the assault, his alibi supported by his wife's evidence and an innocent explanation for the presence of his blood. 3. The Court applied the test identified in R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82 at 87-88. The jury heard the evidence of all the witnesses and saw them give it. Upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offences charged. 3. An extension of time up to and including the date of filing of the notice of appeal was granted. The Court dismissed the appeal. ORDERS