DOE v R [2008] NSWCCA 203

DOE v R [2008] NSWCCA 203

The trial advocate’s remark regarding Mr Mulima having 'no axe to grind' did not, in the context of the whole trial and summing up, invite the jury to impermissibly speculate on motive or shift the onus of proof. The directions by the trial judge as to the assessment of witnesses and reiteration of the onus of proof were sufficient to prevent any miscarriage of justice. There was no error of law and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal, Following District Court Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'sexual Assault Offences' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'admissions' 'witness Reliability and Impartiality' 'summing Up to Jury' 'onus of Proof' 'motive to Lie']
['criminal Law'] ['conviction Appeal' 'sexual Assault Offences' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'admissions' 'witness Reliability and Impartiality' 'summing Up to Jury' 'onus of Proof' 'motive to Lie']

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 in the Court of Criminal Appeal, Following District Court Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial advocate’s comment that a key prosecution witness had 'no axe to grind' with the accused constituted an impermissible suggestion equivalent to 'Why would he lie?', thereby giving rise to a miscarriage of justice by reversing the onus of proof" "Whether the trial judge's summing up compounded any such error"]

Ratio Decidendi

The trial advocate’s remark regarding Mr Mulima having 'no axe to grind' did not, in the context of the whole trial and summing up, invite the jury to impermissibly speculate on motive or shift the onus of proof. The directions by the trial judge as to the assessment of witnesses and reiteration of the onus of proof were sufficient to prevent any miscarriage of justice. There was no error of law and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • []