R v Connors [2000] NSWCCA 470

R v Connors [2000] NSWCCA 470

The Court refused leave or dismissed each conviction ground. A s165 warning was not required on the facts, and in any event the summing-up conveyed the need for special care; a Murray warning was not required because the Crown case did not depend solely on the complainant and the complainant's brother's evidence...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions and Sentences Imposed After a District Court Jury Trial Before Nield DCJ
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Indecent Assault' 'homosexual Intercourse With a Male Person Aged Between Ten and Eighteen Years' 'evidence Act S165 Warning' 'corroboration' 'motive to Lie' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Indecent Assault' 'homosexual Intercourse With a Male Person Aged Between Ten and Eighteen Years' 'evidence Act S165 Warning' 'corroboration' 'motive to Lie' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']

Source-derived case record

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 and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions and Sentences Imposed After a District Court Jury Trial Before Nield DCJ

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred by failing to warn the jury under s165(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 of the need for caution in determining whether to accept the evidence of the complainant and the weight to be given to it because of age.' "Whether the trial judge erred by failing to warn the jury that they should scrutinise the complainant's evidence with great care." "Whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury as to what evidence could constitute corroboration of the complainant's evidence." 'Whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury that rejection of an alleged motive for the complainant to lie did not mean the complainant was necessarily telling the truth.' 'Whether the verdicts were unreasonable and/or incapable of being supported by the evidence.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal against sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave or dismissed each conviction ground. A s165 warning was not required on the facts, and in any event the summing-up conveyed the need for special care; a Murray warning was not required because the Crown case did not depend solely on the complainant and the complainant's brother's evidence afforded support; corroboration directions of the kind sought were not required after s164(3) of the Evidence Act 1995; no motive-to-lie direction was required in the circumstances and no such direction was sought; and, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on counts 2 to 6. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to rely on grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 was refused.' 'Ground 5 was abandoned.' 'Ground 6 was dismissed.' 'The appeal against conviction was dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.']