GROUNDSTROEM, Christoffer Andreas v R [2013] NSWCCA 237

GROUNDSTROEM, Christoffer Andreas v R [2013] NSWCCA 237

Although the trial judge erred in treating the complainant's early complaint to the appellant as disposing of the significance of later delay in reporting to police, the matters ultimately identified at trial did not establish a significant forensic disadvantage requiring a jury direction under s 165B. The additional matters relied on appeal were not raised below and, because s 165B required an application identifying the disadvantage, leave under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules was refused. Accordingly, no basis was shown to disturb the convictions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault' 'historical Sexual Assault' 'consent' 'delay in Complaint' 'significant Forensic Disadvantage' 'jury Directions' 'admissions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['sexual Assault' 'historical Sexual Assault' 'consent' 'delay in Complaint' 'significant Forensic Disadvantage' 'jury Directions' 'admissions']

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 Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in failing to inform the jury of any significant forensic disadvantage suffered by the appellant as a consequence of delay.' 'Whether the matters relied on at trial identified a significant forensic disadvantage requiring a direction under s 165B of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the appellant should be granted leave under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to rely on additional matters not raised at trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the trial judge erred in treating the complainant's early complaint to the appellant as disposing of the significance of later delay in reporting to police, the matters ultimately identified at trial did not establish a significant forensic disadvantage requiring a jury direction under s 165B. The additional matters relied on appeal were not raised below and, because s 165B required an application identifying the disadvantage, leave under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules was refused. Accordingly, no basis was shown to disturb the convictions.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']