Hogg v R [2019] NSWCCA 323

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hogg v R [2019] NSWCCA 323 Hearing dates: 31 July 2019 Decision date: 30 December 2019 Before: White JA at [1]; Wright J at [135]; Wilson J at [136] Decision: 1. To the extent necessary, grant the applicant leave to appeal. 2. Order that the appeal be allowed and: a) the appellant's conviction on 9 February 2018 be quashed; and b) enter a judgment and verdict of acquittal in respect of the offence charged. Catchwords: EVIDENCE — privileges — self-incrimination privilege — consideration of s 89A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) — where accused exercised right to silence during police questioning — where jury directed that an adverse inference from accused's silence was open — whether s 89A applicable

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — trial — Browne v Dunn — where accused's explanation for silence is reliance on legal advice — where explanation unchallenged — whether invitation to draw adverse inference a miscarriage of justice

CRIME — appeals — appeal against conviction —application of proviso — whether substantial miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — trial — cross-examination and summing up —where Crown cross-examination and summing up undermined accused's evidence of good character — where no remedial direction given — whether miscarriage of justice Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61D Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (UK), ss 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 89, 89A Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013 (NSW) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 21 Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266 Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; [2001] HCA 25 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555; [1992] HCA 13 Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4 Gilham v R [2012] NSWCCA 131 Greenhalgh v R [2017] NSWCCA 94 Gulliford v R [2004] NSWCCA 338; (2004) 148 A Crim R 558 Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; [2013] HCA 39 MWJ v The Queen [2005] HCA 74; (2005) 80 ALJR 329 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37 Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95; [1991] HCA 34 Picken v R; R v Picken [2007] NSWCA 319 R v Argent ]1997] 2 Cr.App.R 27 R v Beckles [2005] 1 WLR 2829; [2004] EWCA Crim 2766 R v Betts [2001] 2 Cr.App.R. 16 R v Condron and Condron [1997] 1 WLR 827; [1997] 1 CR APP R 185 R v Hoare [2005] 1 WLR 1804; [2004] EWCA Crim 784 R v MWL [2002] VSCA 221; (2002) 137 A Crim R 282 R v Petkar [2003] EWCA Crim 2668; [2004] 1 CR.APP R 22 R v Taufahema (2007) 228 CLR 232; [2007] HCA 11 The Queen v A2 [2019] HCA 35; (2019) 93 ALJR 1106 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217; [1993] HCA 65 Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365; [1988] HCA 6 X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92; [2013] HCA 29 Yu v R [2018] NSWCCA 201 Category: Principal judgment Parties: David Benedict Hogg (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: G Bashir SC with M Breeze (Applicant) D Kell SC with E Jones (Respondent)