R v Roberts [2001] NSWCCA 163

R v Roberts [2001] NSWCCA 163

The trial miscarried because the trial judge failed to give a Longman direction regarding the forensic disadvantages to the accused resulting from the extensive delay in the complaint of the alleged sexual offences, as required by authoritative decisions of the High Court. This omission constituted a fundamental error regardless of the strengths of the Crown case or the tactical positions of counsel at trial, leading to the quashing of the convictions and the ordering of a new trial.

Parties
Appellant: Bruce Roberts; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal on Appeal From Conviction and Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Delay in Complaint, Jury Directions, Longman Warning, Trial Fairness, Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Delay in Complaint Jury Directions Longman Warning Trial Fairness Miscarriage of Justice

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Roberts

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Decision of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal on Appeal From Conviction and Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to give the jury a Longman direction regarding the delay in complaint of sexual abuse
  2. 2 Whether such a direction was required despite no request for it by counsel at trial
  3. 3 Whether the failure to give the direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The trial miscarried because the trial judge failed to give a Longman direction regarding the forensic disadvantages to the accused resulting from the extensive delay in the complaint of the alleged sexual offences, as required by authoritative decisions of the High Court. This omission constituted a fundamental error regardless of the strengths of the Crown case or the tactical positions of counsel at trial, leading to the quashing of the convictions and the ordering of a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Convictions and sentences quashed
  • New trial ordered