DH v R [2020] NSWCCA 2

DH v R [2020] NSWCCA 2

The convictions were not unreasonable because, on the whole of the evidence and giving proper weight to the trial judge's advantage in seeing and hearing the witnesses, it was open to the judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12. The inconsistencies concerning genital observations, delayed complaints, and other discrepancies did not require a reasonable doubt and could be reconciled with the complainants' age, recall, circumstances of disclosure and the trial judge's favourable credibility findings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Appeal Against Conviction From District Court of NSW Judge Alone Trial
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'judge Alone Trial' 'child Sexual Offences' 'tendency Evidence' 'credibility and Reliability of Complainants' 'delayed Complaint']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['conviction Appeal' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'judge Alone Trial' 'child Sexual Offences' 'tendency Evidence' 'credibility and Reliability of Complainants' 'delayed Complaint']

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

Criminal Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Appeal Against Conviction From District Court of NSW Judge Alone Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 were unreasonable having regard to the evidence.' "Whether the complainants' failure or alleged inability to describe the applicant's unusual genital condition rendered the guilty verdicts unreasonable." 'Whether the trial judge was entitled to accept the honesty and reliability of JS, DH and TRM notwithstanding inconsistencies, delay in complaint and the defence contention of concoction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were not unreasonable because, on the whole of the evidence and giving proper weight to the trial judge's advantage in seeing and hearing the witnesses, it was open to the judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12. The inconsistencies concerning genital observations, delayed complaints, and other discrepancies did not require a reasonable doubt and could be reconciled with the complainants' age, recall, circumstances of disclosure and the trial judge's favourable credibility findings.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against conviction is granted.' 'The appeal against conviction is dismissed.']