Regina v D.R.E [2004] NSWCCA 305

Regina v D.R.E [2004] NSWCCA 305

Grounds 1 to 4 were well taken and required the appeals against conviction to be upheld. Ground 5 was not upheld because, despite discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the complainant, the appellant and the complainant's sister, together with corroboration from the sister, meant it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and the jury did not ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Convictions After Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeals against conviction upheld; current convictions and sentences quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'sexual Offences Against a Child' 'delay in Complaint' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'sexual Offences Against a Child' 'delay in Complaint' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Convictions After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial miscarried by admitting evidence of sexual activity between the appellant, the complainant and a minor referred to as DB.' 'Whether the trial miscarried by directing the jury that, if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on count 4, they could use that as evidence of sexual intent in relation to the other charges.' 'Whether the trial judge failed adequately to direct the jury in relation to the significance of delay in complaint.' "Whether comments made by the Crown Prosecutor in address to the jury about the motive of the complainant's sister for disliking the appellant caused a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Grounds 1 to 4 were well taken and required the appeals against conviction to be upheld. Ground 5 was not upheld because, despite discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the complainant, the appellant and the complainant's sister, together with corroboration from the sister, meant it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and the jury did not ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction upheld; current convictions and sentences quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['That the appeals against conviction be upheld.' 'That the current convictions and sentences be quashed.' 'That there be an order for a new trial.']