DS v R [2022] NSWCCA 55

DS v R [2022] NSWCCA 55

By majority, the Court refused the application to extend time because none of the proposed grounds of appeal had merit. The trial judge's directions on consent were free of error, the relationship evidence was properly admitted and used for context and issues of consent and knowledge rather than tendency, and it was open to the trial judge to accept the complainant's evidence and be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on the convictions. The absence of merit meant that refusing an extension of time would not occasion injustice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Application to Extend Time and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court of New South Wales After Judge Alone Trial
Outcome
Application to extend time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'consent in Sexual Assault Offences' 'relationship Evidence' 'delay in Complaint' 'judge Alone Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals' 'sexual Offences' 'evidence'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'consent in Sexual Assault Offences' 'relationship Evidence' 'delay in Complaint' 'judge Alone Trial']

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

Application to Extend Time and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court of New South Wales After Judge Alone Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to appeal against conviction.' 'Whether the trial judge misdirected himself as to the element of consent under Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61HA.' 'Whether relationship evidence had probative force on the issue of consent or was impermissibly used for tendency reasoning.' 'Whether the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court refused the application to extend time because none of the proposed grounds of appeal had merit. The trial judge's directions on consent were free of error, the relationship evidence was properly admitted and used for context and issues of consent and knowledge rather than tendency, and it was open to the trial judge to accept the complainant's evidence and be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on the convictions. The absence of merit meant that refusing an extension of time would not occasion injustice.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application to extend time to appeal refused.']