R v Ball [2001] NSWCCA 352

R v Ball [2001] NSWCCA 352

Because the Crown case on the WJD indictment depended on WJD's evidence, the alleged offences occurred about 20 years earlier, and the summing-up did not warn the jury in accordance with Longman about careful scrutiny of the evidence or the difficulties the applicant faced in defending himself, the jury may have reached a different verdict and the convictions had to be set aside. The case was not weak and the offences were serious, so a new trial rather than acquittals was ordered. The sentences on the guilty plea indictment were quashed and reimposed to accommodate the new trial and reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Extension of time and leave to appeal granted; appeals allowed; convictions on the WJD indictment set aside and new trial ordered; sentences on the guilty plea indictment quashed and reimposed.
Legal Topics
['longman Direction' 'delayed Complaint' 'child Sexual Offences' 'new Trial' 'severity of Sentence' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['longman Direction' 'delayed Complaint' 'child Sexual Offences' 'new Trial' 'severity of Sentence' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences']

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 Against Conviction and Sentence / Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's failure to give a direction in accordance with Longman v The Queen required the convictions on the WJD indictment to be set aside." 'Whether the Court should enter verdicts of acquittal or order a new trial.' 'Whether the sentences imposed on the indictment to which the applicant pleaded guilty should be adjusted because of the concurrency of the sentences on both indictments.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Crown case on the WJD indictment depended on WJD's evidence, the alleged offences occurred about 20 years earlier, and the summing-up did not warn the jury in accordance with Longman about careful scrutiny of the evidence or the difficulties the applicant faced in defending himself, the jury may have reached a different verdict and the convictions had to be set aside. The case was not weak and the offences were serious, so a new trial rather than acquittals was ordered. The sentences on the guilty plea indictment were quashed and reimposed to accommodate the new trial and reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Court Disposition

Extension of time and leave to appeal granted; appeals allowed; convictions on the WJD indictment set aside and new trial ordered; sentences on the guilty plea indictment quashed and reimposed.

Orders

  • ['As to the conviction appeal (indictment of 29 October 1997), extension of time granted.' 'Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Sentence quashed.' 'Order that there be a new trial on the offence of buggery and 3 offences of indecent assault.' 'As to the sentence appeal (indictment of 27 October 1997 and...