Regina v John Helsdingen [2007] NSWDC 356

Regina v John Helsdingen [2007] NSWDC 356

The defence question implied that the complainant may have taken part in sexual activity or had sexual experience, but it was asked before the Court had ruled on admissibility as required by s293(5). The question did not fall within s293(4)(b) because the relevant exception was directed to issues such as an accused's belief in consent, which was not relevant to the charges. The inadmissible question created a risk of jury speculation that the Crown could not confront without breaching s293, placing the Crown at a significant disadvantage, so the jury was discharged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Child Sexual Assault Trial / Application to Discharge the Jury After Defence Question Raising Admissibility Under S293 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Outcome
Crown Prosecutor's application allowed; jury discharged.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Assault Trial' "admissibility of Evidence About Complainant's Sexual Activity or Sexual Experience" 'section 293 Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'discharge of Jury']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['child Sexual Assault Trial' "admissibility of Evidence About Complainant's Sexual Activity or Sexual Experience" 'section 293 Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'discharge of Jury']

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 Law Child Sexual Assault Trial / Application to Discharge the Jury After Defence Question Raising Admissibility Under S293 Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defence question to the complainant breached s293 Criminal Procedure Act 1986.' 'Whether the question was admissible under the exception in s293(4)(b) Criminal Procedure Act 1986.' 'Whether the jury should be discharged because of the effect of the inadmissible question.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defence question implied that the complainant may have taken part in sexual activity or had sexual experience, but it was asked before the Court had ruled on admissibility as required by s293(5). The question did not fall within s293(4)(b) because the relevant exception was directed to issues such as an accused's belief in consent, which was not relevant to the charges. The inadmissible question created a risk of jury speculation that the Crown could not confront without breaching s293, placing the Crown at a significant disadvantage, so the jury was discharged.

Court Disposition

Crown Prosecutor's application allowed; jury discharged.

Orders

  • ['Jury discharged.']