DJS v R [2010] NSWCCA 200

DJS v R [2010] NSWCCA 200

The failure of the trial judge to direct the jury that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of incidents relied on as tendency evidence constituted an error, but on an independent assessment of the evidence—including the strong support for the complainant’s evidence and the jury’s verdict—no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred. The error did not have significance in determining the verdict, so the proviso to s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 was properly applied, and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'tendency Evidence' 'sexual Assault' 'jury Directions' 'standard of Proof' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'application of Proviso']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'tendency Evidence' 'sexual Assault' 'jury Directions' 'standard of Proof' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'application of Proviso']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury that it had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's sexual interest in the complainant before it could use this evidence against him" 'Whether this error led to a miscarriage of justice and whether the proviso to s 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 should be applied']

Ratio Decidendi

The failure of the trial judge to direct the jury that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of incidents relied on as tendency evidence constituted an error, but on an independent assessment of the evidence—including the strong support for the complainant’s evidence and the jury’s verdict—no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred. The error did not have significance in determining the verdict, so the proviso to s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 was properly applied, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • []