REES v R [2010] NSWCCA 66

REES v R [2010] NSWCCA 66

The trial judge's directions on relationship evidence were fundamentally erroneous because they allowed the jury to use prejudicial evidence of prior sexualised conduct as assisting proof of the charged offences without properly confining its use. Although no objection was taken at trial, leave was granted because the error was fundamental. The complainant's primary evidence on the convicted count was uncorroborated and the case was essentially oath against oath, so the Court could not be satisfied that a properly instructed jury would inevitably have convicted; the proviso was therefore not applied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['sexual Offence' 'relationship Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'misdirection' 'proviso' 'oath Against Oath']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeal'] ['sexual Offence' 'relationship Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'misdirection' 'proviso' 'oath Against Oath']

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 / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the use of context or relationship evidence.' "Whether the trial judge's redirection on the complainant's possible motives for lying was inadequate and could be raised despite no objection at trial." 'Whether the proviso to s 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act should be applied despite the misdirection.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's directions on relationship evidence were fundamentally erroneous because they allowed the jury to use prejudicial evidence of prior sexualised conduct as assisting proof of the charged offences without properly confining its use. Although no objection was taken at trial, leave was granted because the error was fundamental. The complainant's primary evidence on the convicted count was uncorroborated and the case was essentially oath against oath, so the Court could not be satisfied that a properly instructed jury would inevitably have convicted; the proviso was therefore not applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed' 'Conviction quashed' 'New trial ordered']