REGINA v Daniel Thomas DAVIS [2004] NSWCCA 298

REGINA v Daniel Thomas DAVIS [2004] NSWCCA 298

Although the doctor's opinion that sexual assault had probably occurred should not have been asked for and would have been inadmissible if objected to, it was received without objection and did not cause a miscarriage of justice, particularly in light of cross-examination. The risk that the jury might reason impermissibly from the appellant's admitted lies to guilt made it open to the trial judge to give an Edwards direction, and the direction was extensive and emphatic. Leave under r 4 was refused on both grounds, and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'leave to Rely on Grounds Not Taken at Trial' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'leave to Rely on Grounds Not Taken at Trial' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial miscarried because of the admission of Dr Ellacott's opinion that it was highly probable that sexual assault, both anal and vaginal, had occurred." 'Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury about lies told by the appellant during his police interview.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the doctor's opinion that sexual assault had probably occurred should not have been asked for and would have been inadmissible if objected to, it was received without objection and did not cause a miscarriage of justice, particularly in light of cross-examination. The risk that the jury might reason impermissibly from the appellant's admitted lies to guilt made it open to the trial judge to give an Edwards direction, and the direction was extensive and emphatic. Leave under r 4 was refused on both grounds, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']