Wilson v R [2019] NSWCCA 38

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Wilson v R [2019] NSWCCA 38 Hearing dates: 27 August 2018 Date of orders: 27 February 2019 Decision date: 27 February 2019 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Walton J at [2] Button J at [382] Decision: (1) The application by the appellant to call fresh evidence is refused.

(2) Leave is granted to the appellant to file the appeal out of time.

(3) Leave to appeal is granted.

(4) The appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – extension of time – whether verdict unreasonable or not available on the evidence – inconsistent verdicts – admissibility of evidence of surveillance recordings – obligation to present material evidence – failure to raise issues at trial – discharge of jury on prejudicial event – fairness of Crown submissions – fairness or appropriateness of summing-up and jury directions – evidence of bad character – fresh evidence – perversion of the course of justice – conduct of Crown in submissions – extension of time granted – appeal dismissed

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing appeal – role of appellant – totality – parity – extension of time granted – leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 (SA) Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) Cases Cited: Aouad v The Queen (2011) 207 A Crim R 411; [2011] NSWCCA 61 ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22 Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123 Dupas v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 237; [2010] HCA 20 Flood-Smith v R [2018] NSWCCA 103 Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15 Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216 Gonzales v R (2007) 178 A Crim R 232; [2007] NSWCCA 321 Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2 Lane v The Queen (2018) 92 ALJR 689; [2018] HCA 28 Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30 Masri v R [2015] NSWCCA 243 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 Obeid v R [2017] NSWCCA 221 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57 R v Abou-Chabake (2004) 149 A Crim R 417; [2004] NSWCCA 356 R v Abusafiah (1991) 24 NSWLR 531 R v AZ [2018] NSWCCA 294 R v Bartle [2003] NSWCCA 329 R v Chan (2002) 131 A Crim R 66; [2002] NSWCCA 217 R v Clements (1993) 68 A Crim R 167 R v Orton [1922] VLR 469 R v Trudgeon (1988) 39 A Crim R 252 R v Wilson [2005] NSWCCA 219 R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38; [2009] NSWCCA 115 Stanford v R [2018] NSWCCA 249 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 The Queen v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; [1992] HCA 16 Why v R [2017] NSWCCA 101 Zoneff v R (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28 Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Michael Wilson (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J Paingakulam and D New (Respondent)