R v Kuol Ngong Majok ADUP [2008] NSWDC 382

R v Kuol Ngong Majok ADUP [2008] NSWDC 382

The inconsistencies relied on by the accused were matters for the jury to assess in deciding whether to accept the complainant's evidence beyond reasonable doubt; because there were appropriate arguments both ways about the acceptability of that evidence, it was inappropriate for the judge to give a Prasad direction that might indirectly suggest to the jury that the evidence should be given little or no weight.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Concerning a Sexual Assault / Application for a Prasad Direction Before the Jury After the Crown Case Closed
Outcome
Application for a Prasad direction refused.
Legal Topics
['prasad Direction' 'jury Directions' 'sexual Assault Trial' 'complainant Credibility' 'inconsistencies in Evidence' 'weight of Crown Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['prasad Direction' 'jury Directions' 'sexual Assault Trial' 'complainant Credibility' 'inconsistencies in Evidence' 'weight of Crown Evidence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial Concerning a Sexual Assault / Application for a Prasad Direction Before the Jury After the Crown Case Closed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the judge should give the jury a Prasad direction in light of alleged inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and statements to police and possible inconsistencies with other witnesses." 'Whether the alleged inconsistencies revealed a serious weakness in the Crown case such that the jury should be invited to consider acquittal without hearing further evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The inconsistencies relied on by the accused were matters for the jury to assess in deciding whether to accept the complainant's evidence beyond reasonable doubt; because there were appropriate arguments both ways about the acceptability of that evidence, it was inappropriate for the judge to give a Prasad direction that might indirectly suggest to the jury that the evidence should be given little or no weight.

Court Disposition

Application for a Prasad direction refused.

Orders

  • ['I will not give a Prasad direction.']