R v Gene David Scorringe [2009] NSWDC 154

R v Gene David Scorringe [2009] NSWDC 154

The proposed evidence was inadmissible because it would imply that the complainant may have taken part in sexual activity before the sexual activity alleged against the accused, and the s 293(4)(c) exception did not apply because the accused admitted a sexual encounter and disputed only consent, rather than denying that any sexual intercourse with him occurred at all.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding Involving an Allegation of Non Consensual Sexual Intercourse / Ruling on Admissibility of Proposed Cross Examination Evidence
Outcome
The proposed evidence is inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'sexual Activity Evidence' 'non Consensual Sexual Intercourse' 'interpretation of S 293(4)(c) Criminal Procedure Act 1986']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'sexual Activity Evidence' 'non Consensual Sexual Intercourse' 'interpretation of S 293(4)(c) Criminal Procedure Act 1986']

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 Proceeding Involving an Allegation of Non Consensual Sexual Intercourse / Ruling on Admissibility of Proposed Cross Examination Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether proposed evidence from the doctor that the complainant's signs of acute trauma occurred within the previous twenty-four hours would disclose or imply that the complainant had or may have taken part in sexual activity other than that which is the subject of her complaint within s 293(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986." 'Whether the exception in s 293(4)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 applies where the accused admits a sexual encounter but says it was consensual.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed evidence was inadmissible because it would imply that the complainant may have taken part in sexual activity before the sexual activity alleged against the accused, and the s 293(4)(c) exception did not apply because the accused admitted a sexual encounter and disputed only consent, rather than denying that any sexual intercourse with him occurred at all.

Court Disposition

The proposed evidence is inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['The evidence that is proposed to be led is inadmissible.']