Macri v R [2022] NSWCCA 177

Macri v R [2022] NSWCCA 177

The applicant did not establish House error in the refusal of the permanent stay or any miscarriage of justice. Although the indictment covered a broad period and there were forensic disadvantages from delay, the applicant had opportunity to commit the offences, the incidents were sufficiently distinguishable, the disadvantages were capable of being addressed by directions, and the trial was not unfair. The complainant's evidence was sufficiently clear and precise as to the acts constituting each count, and, with the complaint evidence and the evidence as a whole, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt; the verdicts were not unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal After District Court Jury Convictions; Grounds Concerned Refusal of a Permanent Stay and Unreasonable Verdicts
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['historical Child Sexual Offences' 'permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'delay and Forensic Disadvantage' 'lack of Particularity' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'complaint Evidence' 'pretext Calls' 'section 165 B Delay Warning']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'appellate Review'] ['historical Child Sexual Offences' 'permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'delay and Forensic Disadvantage' 'lack of Particularity' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'complaint Evidence' 'pretext Calls' 'section 165 B Delay Warning']

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 Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal After District Court Jury Convictions; Grounds Concerned Refusal of a Permanent Stay and Unreasonable Verdicts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in refusing a permanent stay of proceedings because of the broad date range, delay, lack of particularity and alleged forensic disadvantage.' 'Whether the refusal of a permanent stay resulted in a miscarriage of justice at trial within s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).' 'Whether the verdicts on all counts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish House error in the refusal of the permanent stay or any miscarriage of justice. Although the indictment covered a broad period and there were forensic disadvantages from delay, the applicant had opportunity to commit the offences, the incidents were sufficiently distinguishable, the disadvantages were capable of being addressed by directions, and the trial was not unfair. The complainant's evidence was sufficiently clear and precise as to the acts constituting each count, and, with the complaint evidence and the evidence as a whole, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt; the verdicts were not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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