Regina v A R D [2000] NSWCCA 443

Regina v A R D [2000] NSWCCA 443

The appeal was dismissed because the majority held that no miscarriage of justice was shown. The decision not to seek severance of counts 20 and 21, and not to call DG, was a tactical forensic decision not amounting to incompetence. The different verdicts on counts 11 and 14 were rationally explicable by evidence involving RD Senior and did not render the convictions unsafe. The RAT/Jones credibility direction was not mandatory and the directions given were sufficient in the circumstances. RD Senior's fresh evidence lacked credibility and DG's evidence was insufficient to justify a new trial. Count 21 was not duplicitous because the relevant offence was the single act of inducing false...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal From Convictions in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unsafe or Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'incompetence of Counsel' 'severance and Joinder of Counts' 'sexual Offences' 'jury Directions on Credibility' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice' 'duplicity' 'unanimity of Jury Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['unsafe or Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'incompetence of Counsel' 'severance and Joinder of Counts' 'sexual Offences' 'jury Directions on Credibility' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice' 'duplicity' 'unanimity of Jury Verdict']

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 / Appeal From Convictions in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether counts 20 and 21 should have been severed and whether counsel's failure to seek severance caused a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the guilty verdicts were unsafe or unsatisfactory in light of acquittals on counts 11 and 14.' "Whether the trial judge was required to give a direction of the kind discussed in R v RAT [2000] NSWCCA 77 about the effect of doubts concerning a complainant's evidence on one count upon other counts." 'Whether fresh evidence from RD Senior and DG justified quashing convictions or ordering a new trial.' 'Whether count 21, alleging an offer of money to procure false evidence intending to pervert the course of justice, was duplicitous or lacked manifest unanimity.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the majority held that no miscarriage of justice was shown. The decision not to seek severance of counts 20 and 21, and not to call DG, was a tactical forensic decision not amounting to incompetence. The different verdicts on counts 11 and 14 were rationally explicable by evidence involving RD Senior and did not render the convictions unsafe. The RAT/Jones credibility direction was not mandatory and the directions given were sufficient in the circumstances. RD Senior's fresh evidence lacked credibility and DG's evidence was insufficient to justify a new trial. Count 21 was not duplicitous because the relevant offence was the single act of inducing false...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']