Redding v R [2023] NSWCCA 286

Redding v R [2023] NSWCCA 286

The court held: (1) the guilty verdicts could be rationally explained by the jury's reasonable doubt about specific facts (location or date) relevant to the counts on which the applicant was acquitted, without necessarily undermining the complainant's credibility on the counts resulting in conviction; (2) there was ample evidentiary basis on which the Crown's closing address could suggest the complainant's 2006 false complaint was a 'cry for help', and nothing in the address was materially prejudicial or likely to cause a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the convictions were not unreasonable or unsafe, and no error was established in the summing up or the Crown's address.

Parties
Applicant: Brian Redding; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Sexual Assault, Appeal Against Conviction, Jury Directions, Inconsistent Verdicts, Prosecutorial Conduct
Criminal Law Child Sexual Assault Appeal Against Conviction Jury Directions Inconsistent Verdicts Prosecutorial Conduct

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 3 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Redding

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guilty verdicts were unreasonable in light of the not guilty verdicts (inconsistent verdicts)
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution's closing address to the jury was materially prejudicial and unsupported by the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held: (1) the guilty verdicts could be rationally explained by the jury's reasonable doubt about specific facts (location or date) relevant to the counts on which the applicant was acquitted, without necessarily undermining the complainant's credibility on the counts resulting in conviction; (2) there was ample evidentiary basis on which the Crown's closing address could suggest the complainant's 2006 false complaint was a 'cry for help', and nothing in the address was materially prejudicial or likely to cause a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the convictions were not unreasonable or unsafe, and no error was established in the summing up or the Crown's address.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted in respect of ground 1
  • Leave to appeal refused in respect of the second ground of appeal (ground 3 [sic])