DGB v R [2009] NSWCCA 307

DGB v R [2009] NSWCCA 307

When the summing-up was considered as a whole, the jury were not misled about count four. The trial judge gave extensive and correct directions on the onus and standard of proof applying to all counts, specifically directed that guilt on count four required proof beyond reasonable doubt, and later told the jury that a guilty verdict on any count required satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt of the truthfulness of the complainant's evidence. In context, 'truthfulness' would have been understood as meaning that the evidence was in fact true, not merely honestly given. There was therefore no merit in the only ground of appeal and leave under r 4 should be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave Under R 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules and Appeal
Outcome
Leave under r 4 refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Indecent Assault' 'murray Direction' 'complainant Evidence' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['aggravated Indecent Assault' 'murray Direction' 'complainant Evidence' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'jury Directions']

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 / Application for Leave Under R 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's Murray direction for counts without supporting evidence misled the jury about the need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the reliability and truthfulness of the complainant's evidence on count four, where there was supporting evidence from AKR."]

Ratio Decidendi

When the summing-up was considered as a whole, the jury were not misled about count four. The trial judge gave extensive and correct directions on the onus and standard of proof applying to all counts, specifically directed that guilt on count four required proof beyond reasonable doubt, and later told the jury that a guilty verdict on any count required satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt of the truthfulness of the complainant's evidence. In context, 'truthfulness' would have been understood as meaning that the evidence was in fact true, not merely honestly given. There was therefore no merit in the only ground of appeal and leave under r 4 should be refused.

Court Disposition

Leave under r 4 refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave under r 4 refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']