TDP v R; R v TDP [2013] NSWCCA 303

TDP v R; R v TDP [2013] NSWCCA 303

No ground of appeal against conviction was made out; the trial judge's summing up was adequate, all essential warnings were given, and no miscarriage of justice occurred. Regarding the Crown sentence appeal, the judge erred in failing to set non-parole periods for counts 2, 3, 5 and 7, but otherwise the structure of the sentence, including concurrency and accumulation, reflected the approach advocated by the Crown at first instance and should not be disturbed beyond correcting the technical error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (nsw); Appeal Against Conviction and Crown Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Conviction appeal: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed. Crown appeal against sentence: Allowed in part; sentences for counts 2,3,5,7 quashed and replaced with sentences including non-parole periods; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'admissibility and Effect of Expert Evidence' 'summing Up by Judge' 'unreliable Witness Warning' 'corroboration' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'inadequate Sentence' 'accumulation/principle of Totality' 'sentencing Procedure and Requirements']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'admissibility and Effect of Expert Evidence' 'summing Up by Judge' 'unreliable Witness Warning' 'corroboration' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'inadequate Sentence' 'accumulation/principle of Totality' 'sentencing Procedure and Requirements']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (nsw); Appeal Against Conviction and Crown Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on critical issues including toxicology evidence and complainant's reliability" 'Whether the Crown failed to place all relevant evidence before the jury regarding drugs/toxicology' 'Whether the applicant was denied a fair trial due to errors concerning corroboration, summing up, and warnings about unreliable evidence' 'Whether defence counsel provided incompetent representation' 'Whether sentences for certain counts contravened statutory requirements for non-parole periods and were manifestly inadequate' 'Whether the trial judge failed to properly apply accumulation and totality principles in sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

No ground of appeal against conviction was made out; the trial judge's summing up was adequate, all essential warnings were given, and no miscarriage of justice occurred. Regarding the Crown sentence appeal, the judge erred in failing to set non-parole periods for counts 2, 3, 5 and 7, but otherwise the structure of the sentence, including concurrency and accumulation, reflected the approach advocated by the Crown at first instance and should not be disturbed beyond correcting the technical error.

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed. Crown appeal against sentence: Allowed in part; sentences for counts 2,3,5,7 quashed and replaced with sentences including non-parole periods; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against conviction granted, appeal dismissed.' 'Sentences for counts 2, 3, 5, and 7 quashed; new sentences imposed for each with specified non-parole and balance of terms.' 'Crown appeal against sentence otherwise dismissed.']