Regina v Glossop [2001] NSWCCA 165

Regina v Glossop [2001] NSWCCA 165

The delay in prosecution did not result in an unfair trial; the complainant's evidence was not tainted by recovered memory or self-induced hypnosis, and was thus admissible without special safeguards. The application to permanently stay the proceedings and to exclude evidence did not meet the requirements for intervention. The Court found no demonstrated error in the trial judge’s exercise of discretion in refusing both stay and exclusion.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: David John Douglas Glossop
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Section 5 F Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Exclusion of Evidence, Admissibility of Recovered Memory Evidence, Application of Evidence Act Provisions, Discretionary Judgments in Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Permanent Stay of Proceedings Exclusion of Evidence Admissibility of Recovered Memory Evidence Application of Evidence Act Provisions Discretionary Judgments in Criminal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

David John Douglas Glossop

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Section 5 F Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be permanently stayed due to delay and unfairness
  2. 2 Whether evidence of the complainant should be excluded as recovered memory or as unsatisfactory
  3. 3 Application of sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to proposed evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in prosecution did not result in an unfair trial; the complainant's evidence was not tainted by recovered memory or self-induced hypnosis, and was thus admissible without special safeguards. The application to permanently stay the proceedings and to exclude evidence did not meet the requirements for intervention. The Court found no demonstrated error in the trial judge’s exercise of discretion in refusing both stay and exclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed