Walford v R [2016] NSWCCA 288

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Walford v R [2016] NSWCCA 288 Hearing dates: 22 November 2016 Date of orders: 09 December 2016 Decision date: 09 December 2016 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Bellew J at [2] Hidden AJ at [91] Decision: The application for an extension of time is refused. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Application for extension of time – Where applicant was charged with robbery and detaining without consent – Where the victim had been injured in a motor vehicle accident some years before and was left with permanent brain damage – Where the victim's evidence attracted a warning under s. 165 of the Evidence Act – Whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury as to the need for caution in determining whether to accept the victim's evidence, and in determining the weight to be given to it – Where directions were discussed with counsel on two separate occasions before being given to the jury – Where trial counsel took no issue with the directions when they were given – Where the trial judge repeatedly warned the jury about the need for caution in assessing the victim's evidence having regard to both the victim's brain damage and his identification of the applicant as one of the assailants – No error established

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Application for extension of time – Where applicant was charged with robbery and detaining without consent – Where the victim had been injured in a motor vehicle accident some years before and was left with permanent brain damage – Whether the verdicts of guilty were unsafe and unsatisfactory – Where the acceptance or rejection of the victim's evidence were matters for assessment by the jury – Ground of appeal not made out Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 NSW Criminal Appeal Rules Evidence Act 1995 NSW Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266 Atai v R [2014] NSWCCA 210 Gilham v R (2012) 224 A Crim R 22; [2012] NSWCCA 131 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Libke v R (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30 M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 MacKenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35 MFA v R (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53 Parkinson v R [2016] NSWCCA 49 R v Jacobs (2004) 151 A Crim R 452; [2004] NSWCCA 462 R v LAH [2005] NSWCCA 400 R v Nguyen (2010) 242 CLR 491; [2010] HCA 38 SKA v R (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dayna Irene Walford – Applicant Regina – Respondent Representation: Counsel: H White – Applicant B Baker – Respondent