CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – One charge of armed robbery – Distinct description of offender by victim – Applicant twice denied offending in record of interview – Informant mistakenly gave evidence that applicant gave ‘no comment’ record of interview – Whether trial judge erred in refusing to admit ‘further addendum to agreed facts’ after close of prosecution case to correct this error – Whether trial judge’s charge unbalanced – Whether trial judge erred in failing to answer jury question adequately – Whether miscarriage of justice – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Applicant to be retried – Jury Directions Act 2015 ss 65(b); 66(2)(a), (e), (f) – R v Kotzmann [1999] VSCA 27; [1999] 2 VR 123; R v Davies [2005] VSCA 90; (2005) 11 VR 314; DPP v Newman (a pseudonym) [2015] VSCA 25.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury – Extension of time – Fresh evidence – ‘Burn’ from shotgun mentioned in Victim Impact Statement inconsistent with evidence given at trial – Applicant denied opportunity to cross-examine witness as to credibility – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice occurred – Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Indecent act with child under 16 – Production of child pornography – Possessing child pornography – Failure to comply with reporting obligations under Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 – Plea of guilty – Significant delay between arrest and sentencing – Applicant sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 3 years – Applicant in consensual sexual relationship with first complainant – First complainant aged 17 at time of offending – Second complainant aged 15 years and 11 months at time of offending – Images and videos taken with consent of complainants – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – ‘Lower level’ of objective gravity – Appeal allowed – Applicant resentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory Appeal – Evidentiary ruling – Pending trial of respondents for engaging in conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome – First respondent baccarat dealer – Second respondent casino patron – Both respondents arrested and interrogated by casino employees prior to arrival of police – Admissions by respondents to casino employees and police – Failure by casino staff to caution respondents – Admissions to casino staff not sought to be led at trial – Trial judge excluded admissions made to police – Whether within judge’s discretion to exclude evidence of admissions to police as unfair to respondents – Whether casino employees ‘investigating officials’ for purposes of Crimes Act 1958 and Evidence Act 2008 – Whether admissions to casino staff illegally or improperly obtained – Ruling well within judge’s discretion – Leave to appeal refused – Crimes Act 1958 ss 458, 464(2), 464A, 464C, 464D, 464F; Casino Control Act 1991 ss 1, 37(1)(b), 38–45, 81; Evidence Act 2008 ss 84, 85, 90, 135, 137, 138, 139 and Dictionary considered.WORDS AND PHRASES – ‘investigating official’, ‘special employee’.

Confiscation Proceedings - Resisted Crown application to admit record of interview that was obtained in consequence of improprietySubject: Admissibility of evidenceCatchwords: Asset confiscation; Record of interview; Evidence obtained in consequence of improprietyLegislation Cited: Confiscation Act 1997; Evidence Act 2008 s 138Cases Cited: Pollard v The Queen [1992] HCA 69; (1992) 176 CLR 177; R v Haddad (2000) 116 A Crim R; R v Dalley (2002) 132 A Crim R; Tasmania v Crane (2004) 148 A Crim R; Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42; 181 CLR 251; Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University 239 CLR 175; Dalley v R [2002] NSWCCA 284Ruling: Application to admit extract from record of interview refused