Jurd v R [2020] NSWCCA 91

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jurd v R [2020] NSWCCA 91 Hearing dates: 18 November 2019 Date of orders: 06 May 2020 Decision date: 06 May 2020 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Price J at [2]; Campbell J at [224] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal against conviction granted. (2) Appeal against conviction dismissed. (3) Leave to appeal against sentence granted. (4) Appeal against sentence dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – where evidence of de facto relationship between prosecution witness and applicant – where prosecution witness completes evidence before the jury without being made aware of a right to object under s 18 of the Evidence Act – where judge raises s 18 the next day and recalls the witness – voir dire conducted – where witness says she would have objected if informed of the right to object – where judge determines the evidence was admissible – procedural unfairness to the witness – whether error could be corrected retrospectively – whether judge made the witness aware of the effect of s 18 on the voir dire – application of proviso – whether substantial miscarriage of justice by wrongful admission of evidence – forensic choice of counsel – whether different result would have been reached if s 18 raised when witness gave evidence before the jury – no procedural unfairness to applicant – whether Court of Criminal Appeal satisfied that the guilt of the applicant had been proved to the criminal standard.

SENTENCING – whether sentence manifestly excessive – no challenge to assessment of objective seriousness of offences or to the applicant's subjective case. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61M Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(1) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 18, 38, 65 Cases Cited: De Silva v The Queen [2019] HCA 48; (2019) 94 ALJR 100 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54; 74 ALJR 1538; 175 ALR 315; 115 A Crim R 558 Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29; 89 ALJR 776; 323 ALR 33; 253 A Crim R 126 Fletcher v R (2015) 45 VR 634; [2015] VSCA 146 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45; 85 ALJR 195; 272 ALR 465; 204 A Crim R 434; 78 ATR 11 Hofer v R [2019] NSWCCA 244 James v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 475; [2014] HCA 6; 88 ALJR 427; 306 ALR 1; 236 A Crim R 402 Kalbasi v Western Australia (2018) 264 CLR 62; [2018] HCA 7; 92 ALJR 305; 352 ALR 1; 271 A Crim R 245 Lane v The Queen (2018) 265 CLR 196; [2018] HCA 28 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25; 79 ALJR 1048; 215 ALR 213 McKinnin v The Queen [2019] VSCA 114 Muldrock v the Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Mulvihill v R [2016] NSWCCA 259 OKS v Western Australia (2019) 265 CLR 268; [2019] HCA 10; 93 ALJR 438; 364 ALR 573 R v A2; R v KM; R v Raziri (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1306; 253 A Crim R 574 R v B.O. [2012] NSWDC 195; 15 DCLR(NSW) 317 R v Nakash [2017] NSWCCA 196 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46; 76 ALJR 1579; 193 ALR 7; 133 A Crim R 574 Tran v R [2017] NSWCCA 93 Tran v R [2018] NSWCCA 145 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81; 80 ALJR 444; 223 ALR 662; 158 A Crim R 133 Texts Cited: Evidence Bill 1994 (NSW) New South Wales Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 24 May 1995 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kingsley James Jurd (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms S Kluss (Applicant) Mr E Balodis (Respondent)