Golding v R [2024] NSWCCA 129

Golding v R [2024] NSWCCA 129

Neither limb of the ground identified any miscarriage of justice. The trial judge's directions as to how the jury should treat evidence of the uncharged (Queensland) incident—both as tendency and context evidence—were appropriate. The judge correctly directed that if the jury were not satisfied an uncharged incident occurred, evidence relating to it should be set aside, in accordance with the standard approach to tendency evidence. As there was only one count on the indictment and not a 'word against word' case, the Markuleski direction did not apply. No real chance of acquittal lost by reason of the directions was established, nor was there any departure from the entitlement to correct...

Parties
Applicant: Bruce Wayne Golding; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction – Refusal of Leave
Outcome
Refused leave to appeal
Legal Topics
Appeals Against Conviction, Jury Directions, Miscarriage of Justice, Tendency Evidence, Context Evidence
Criminal Law Appeals Against Conviction Jury Directions Miscarriage of Justice Tendency Evidence Context Evidence

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Wayne Golding

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction – Refusal of Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to direct the jury to take into account doubts about uncharged (Queensland) incident in assessing complainant's evidence of charged (NSW) incident constituted a miscarriage of justice
  2. 2 Whether jury directions improperly stated evidence of uncharged incident should be disregarded if not proven, affecting assessment of charged incident

Ratio Decidendi

Neither limb of the ground identified any miscarriage of justice. The trial judge's directions as to how the jury should treat evidence of the uncharged (Queensland) incident—both as tendency and context evidence—were appropriate. The judge correctly directed that if the jury were not satisfied an uncharged incident occurred, evidence relating to it should be set aside, in accordance with the standard approach to tendency evidence. As there was only one count on the indictment and not a 'word against word' case, the Markuleski direction did not apply. No real chance of acquittal lost by reason of the directions was established, nor was there any departure from the entitlement to correct...

Court Disposition

Refused leave to appeal

Orders

  • Pursuant to r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021, refuse the applicant leave to appeal on the ground contained in the proposed notice of appeal.