AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 16 June 2026

R v Spencer

[2026] NSWDC 197

Public order & justice offences
CRIME JUDGE ALONE TRIAL P ERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE ONE ESSENTIAL WITNESS

Citation: R v Spencer [2026] NSWDC 197
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 16 June 2026
Judge: Bright DCJ (judge alone)

Background

The accused was charged with one count of threatening a person with intent to pervert the course of justice, contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The charge arose from events between 14 March 2024 and 23 April 2024 at The Entrance, NSW.

The Crown alleged that the accused approached the complainant on two separate occasions and pressured him to withdraw criminal charges that had been laid against two other men, Reece Watters and Austin Walker, following a break-in at the complainant's premises. On the first occasion, the accused allegedly attended the complainant's home and made a threat that he would send "people to visit" if the charges were not dropped. On the second alleged occasion, at the complainant's workplace (the El Largo Hotel), the accused asked whether the charges had been withdrawn and told the complainant that Austin Walker's mother would call him.

The accused elected a judge alone trial, with the Crown's consent, pursuant to ss 132 and 132A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). The accused did not give evidence and pleaded not guilty.

  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the acts alleged, specifically the two confrontations with the complainant.
  • Whether the complainant was a sufficiently honest and accurate witness to ground a conviction, given the Crown case rested exclusively on his evidence.
  • Whether the absence of corroborating evidence, particularly phone records and evidence from Mrs Walker, undermined the complainant's credibility to the point where a conviction could not safely be returned.
  • Whether the conduct alleged, if proved, would establish the offence under s 319 of the Crimes Act (a legal sufficiency question raised by the defence, though ultimately not determinative).

Decision

Issue 1: Elements of the offence

The Crown was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did an act and that the act was done with intent to pervert the course of justice. The court noted that the intent element is established if the act had the tendency to pervert the course of justice and was intended to do so. Threatening a person to drop criminal charges, if proved to have occurred, would be sufficient to constitute the offence.

Issue 2: Credibility of the sole Crown witness

Because the Crown case rested entirely on the complainant's evidence, Bright DCJ applied the essential witness direction: the court could only convict if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was both honest and accurate. The judge found the complainant presented as apparently honest and was making genuine efforts to recount events accurately.

Issue 3: Corroboration and the phone call from Mrs Walker

The critical credibility issue arose from the complainant's account that, following the second conversation, Mrs Walker telephoned him within a day or so, as the accused had said she would. Mrs Walker gave evidence that she had not contacted the complainant by telephone. No phone records were tendered to resolve the conflict. The court found that Mrs Walker's evidence, combined with the absence of phone record evidence, demonstrated a concrete unreliability in the complainant's account on a material point.

Verdict

Although the judge regarded the complainant as apparently honest, the demonstrated unreliability regarding the phone call from Mrs Walker meant the court was not prepared to accept his evidence beyond reasonable doubt on the principal issue. The absence of phone records, while not a basis for speculation, was a factor the court was entitled to weigh in assessing whether reasonable doubt existed. Accordingly, the accused was found not guilty on count 1.

Orders Made

  • The accused was found not guilty on count 1 (perverting the course of justice, contrary to s 319 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)).

Key Takeaways

  • Where the Crown case rests exclusively on one witness, a court applying the essential witness direction must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the witness is both honest and accurate before returning a guilty verdict.
  • A finding that a witness appears honest does not automatically satisfy the accuracy limb of that test: demonstrated unreliability on a specific material matter can be enough to prevent a conviction.
  • The District Court confirmed that the absence of readily available corroborating evidence (such as phone records) is a factor a fact-finder may weigh when assessing reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, even though no inference may be drawn about what that evidence would have shown.
  • Under s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), threatening a person to withdraw criminal charges against a third party carries the necessary tendency and intent to pervert the course of justice, provided the act itself is proved to the required standard.
  • A late judge alone election (filed within 28 days of trial) may be accepted under s 132A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) with leave of the court and the Crown's consent.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 319 (perverting the course of justice)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 132A, 133 (judge alone trials; directions)

Cases
No cases were cited in the judgment.