Binns v R [2017] NSWCCA 280

Binns v R [2017] NSWCCA 280

Leave was refused because none of the proposed grounds demonstrated an arguable miscarriage of justice. The trial judge was not required to give a s 165B direction because no significant forensic disadvantage caused by delay was established and, on the preferable view, no proper application for such a direction was made. The jury was adequately told that the Crown case depended on the complainant and that it had to be satisfied she was truthful and reliable beyond reasonable doubt. The identified factual slips in the summing up about Jenny and Elizabeth were obvious and immaterial in context. The evidence, including the complainant's account, Patrick's evidence about the timing of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Application From District Court Conviction
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave refused; application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse With Person Under 10 Years of Age' 'jury Directions' 'delay in Complaint' 'significant Forensic Disadvantage' 'uncorroborated Complainant Evidence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['sexual Intercourse With Person Under 10 Years of Age' 'jury Directions' 'delay in Complaint' 'significant Forensic Disadvantage' 'uncorroborated Complainant Evidence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Application From District Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge should have given a direction under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165B as to significant forensic disadvantage resulting from delay in complaint.' 'Whether the jury should have been specifically directed about the need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the truthfulness of the uncorroborated complainant.' "Whether factual errors in the trial judge's directions concerning the evidence of Jenny and Elizabeth caused a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.' 'Whether leave was required and should be granted under Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4 and Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because none of the proposed grounds demonstrated an arguable miscarriage of justice. The trial judge was not required to give a s 165B direction because no significant forensic disadvantage caused by delay was established and, on the preferable view, no proper application for such a direction was made. The jury was adequately told that the Crown case depended on the complainant and that it had to be satisfied she was truthful and reliable beyond reasonable doubt. The identified factual slips in the summing up about Jenny and Elizabeth were obvious and immaterial in context. The evidence, including the complainant's account, Patrick's evidence about the timing of the...

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave refused; application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant an extension of time to file his notice of appeal to the date of filing of the notice on 23 August 2017.' 'Pursuant to rule 4, refuse leave with respect to grounds 1, 2 and 3.' 'Refuse leave to appeal with respect to ground 4.' 'Accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.']