R v Curry [2002] NSWCCA 315

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Curry [2002] NSWCCA 315 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60280/02; 60281/02 HEARING DATE(S) : 26 July 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 26 July 2002

PARTIES : Regina v Patrick Curry Regina v Elizabeth Curry JUDGMENT OF : Heydon JA at 1; Levine J; Adams J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Wood CJ at CL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Appellants: Mr P Berman SC Respondent: Mr G Bellew SOLICITORS : Appellants: Legal Aid Commission of NSW Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

DECISION : See paragraph 5

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60280/02 60281/02

HEYDON JA LEVINE J ADAMS J

26 July 2002 REGINA v Elizabeth CURRY REGINA v Patrick Bernard CURRY Judgment 1 HEYDON JA: The appellants appeal to this Court against their convictions for various offences relating to the importation and supply of heroin. The prosecution resulted from a joint task force investigation code named Operation Bing. The alleged offences took place in the years 1984 and 1985. After a trial in 1987 before Wood CJ at CL each of the appellants was convicted and sentences were passed. The Crown successfully appealed against the inadequacy of the sentences and the appellants unsuccessfully applied for leave to appeal against the sentences. Later, the appellants appealed unsuccessfully against the convictions. 2 In 1995 the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service heard evidence from a number of witnesses concerning the investigation and prosecution arising from Operation Bing. 3 On 27 February 2002 an application was made to the Supreme Court under s 474D of the Crimes Act 2000. Adams J on 30 April 2002 referred those applications to this Court to be dealt with as appeals under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. 4 The Crown submitted the evidence relied on by the appellants does not and cannot establish that the case against each of the appellants was entirely concocted. The Crown submitted former Detective Deaves, who made extensive admissions of criminal and corrupt conduct while a police officer, gave evidence that some of the contents of the records of interview he conducted with the appellant Patrick Curry accurately recorded what had occurred. However, the Crown accepts that the evidence now relied on by the appellants raises a significant possibility that a jury acting reasonably would have acquitted the appellants if the new evidence had been before them and that as a consequence the conviction of the appellants cannot stand. 5 The appellants have served the non-parole period imposed and the Crown accepts that their convictions and sentences should be quashed and verdicts of acquittal should be entered. Those are the orders of the Court. **********