Citation: R v Adamson [2005] NSWCCA 7
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 31 January 2005
Judge(s): Spigelman CJ, Dunford J, Hidden J
Background
The applicant faced two charges in the District Court: breaking and entering a building with intent to steal, and maliciously damaging property by fire. Before trial, he sought a ruling from the trial judge on whether intoxication could be raised as a relevant consideration in his defence.
The applicant's argument rested on Part 11A of the Crimes Act 1900, which permits evidence of intoxication to be taken into account when determining whether a defendant had the specific intention required for a "specific intent" offence. He contended that both charges fell into that category, meaning the jury could consider his intoxicated state when assessing his intent.
Blackmore DCJ rejected this argument, concluding that no basis had been shown for the applicant to rely on intoxication as a defence to either charge. His Honour made no formal order. The applicant then sought leave to appeal that conclusion to the Court of Criminal Appeal under section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial judge's pre-trial reasons for decision constituted a "judgment or order" within the meaning of section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, so as to found an interlocutory appeal.
- Whether a judge's indication of how he would approach intoxication evidence at trial amounted to a final legal ruling on a discrete legal controversy.
Decision
Spigelman CJ, with Dunford and Hidden JJ agreeing, held that what Blackmore DCJ had done was not a judgment or order within the meaning of section 5F. The judge had simply indicated what he would do if evidence of intoxication were adduced at trial, either by excluding it over objection or by directing the jury not to take it into account on the question of intent. That indication lacked the quality of finality necessary to constitute an interlocutory judgment.
The Chief Justice drew a close analogy between the trial judge's ruling and an evidential ruling, noting that evidential rulings are well-established as falling outside section 5F. The relevant authorities, set out in R v Steffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633, confirmed that such rulings do not amount to interlocutory judgments or orders for the purposes of the Act.
The applicant's submission that the judge had in effect made a declaration that section 428C does not apply to the relevant offences was rejected. No declaration had been made. The conclusion reached by Blackmore DCJ was framed only as an indication of his intended approach at trial, not as a binding resolution of a legal issue in the proceedings.
Orders Made
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A trial judge's pre-trial indication of how intoxication evidence will be treated at trial does not constitute a "judgment or order" under section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 and is therefore not subject to interlocutory appeal.
- For a ruling to qualify as an interlocutory judgment within section 5F, it must have a requisite element of finality, resolving an issue in the proceedings in a binding manner. A non-binding indication of approach does not meet that threshold.
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that the well-established rule excluding evidential rulings from the scope of section 5F extends to pre-trial opinions on the availability of a particular defence.
- In dismissing the application, the Court drew on the reasoning in R v Steffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633, which collects authorities establishing that evidential rulings are not interlocutory judgments or orders for appeal purposes.
- No order having been made below, the applicant could not characterise the trial judge's reasons as a declaration. The absence of a formal order was itself a significant factor in the court's analysis.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112(1), 195(6), Part 11A, s 428C
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F
Cases:
- R v Steffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633