Perish, Anthony v R; Perish, Andrew v R; Lawton, Matthew v R [2016] NSWCCA 89

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Perish, Anthony v R; Perish, Andrew v R; Lawton, Matthew v R [2016] NSWCCA 89 Hearing dates: 8 September 2015; 9 September 2015 Date of orders: 20 May 2016 Decision date: 20 May 2016 Before: Bathurst CJ; Hoeben CJ at CL; Bellew J Decision: Anthony Perish: (1) Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Andrew Perish: (1) In relation to Grounds 1 and 2 challenging the conviction, we would grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal. (2) In relation to Ground 4 in respect of sentence, we would grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal.

Matthew Lawton: (1) In respect of Ground 1, appeal against conviction dismissed (2) In respect of each of Grounds 2, 3 and 4, leave to appeal refused. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction – miscarriage of justice – whether miscarriage resulted from admission of hearsay evidence – whether misdirection as to available use of hearsay evidence – whether miscarriage resulted from joint trial with co-accused – whether misdirection regarding plea of co-accused – whether misdirection as to matters which could be taken into account

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction – evidence – whether hearsay evidence only inadmissible over objection – whether error in admitting credibility evidence – whether verdicts unreasonable or unsupported on evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentencing – whether manifestly excessive Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 424A Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1), 6(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 21 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38, 59, 102, 103, 106, 118, 137, 165(1)(a), 190 Cases Cited: ARS v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 266 Atai v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 210 Burrell v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 193 Carroll v The Queen [2009] HCA 13; 254 CLR 259 Commissioner of Taxation v SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 74 Dhanhoa v The Queen [2003] HCA 40; 217 CLR 1 Gilbert v The Queen [2000] HCA 15; 201 CLR 414 Gilham v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 131; 224 A Crim R 22 Gonzales v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 321; 178 A Crim R 232 Gray v Ware Building Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 271 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 James v The Queen [2014] HCA 6; 253 CLR 475 Lee v The Queen [1998] HCA 60; 195 CLR 524 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 16; 184 CLR 487 MacKenzie v The Queen [1996] HCA 35; 190 CLR 348 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606 Pemble v The Queen [1971] HCA 20; 124 CLR 107 Poniris v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 100 R v FDP [2008] NSWCCA 317; (2009) 74 NSWLR 645 R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618 R v Kaddour [2005] NSWCCA 303; 156 A Crim R 11 R v Le [2002] NSWCCA 232; 130 A Crim R 44 R v Lyberopoulos [2002] NSWCCA 280 R v Micallef [2002] NSWCCA 480; 136 A Crim R 127 R v Nguyen [2010] HCA 38; 242 CLR 491 R v Pham [2004] NSWCCA 190 R v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258 R v Spathis [2001] NSWCCA 476 Ross v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 207 Selstam v McGuinness [2000] NSWCA 29; 49 NSWLR 262 SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400 TKWJ v The Queen [2002] HCA 46; 212 CLR 124 Velkoski v The Queen [2014] VSCA 141 Walker v Walker [1937] HCA 44; 57 CLR 630 WC v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 52 Texts Cited: J D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (10th ed 2015, Lexis Nexis) Stephen Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (11th ed 2014, Thomson Reuters) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Anthony John Perish – Applicant Andrew Michael Perish – Applicant Matthew Robert Lawton – Applicant Regina – Respondent Crown Representation: Counsel: Mr H Dhanji SC/Ms G Lewer – Applicant Anthony John Perish Mr J Trevallion – Applicant Andrew Michael Perish Mr P Lange – Applicant Matthew Robert Lawton Ms S Dowling SC/Mr F Veltro – Respondent Crown