Regina v King [2000] NSWCCA 507

Regina v King [2000] NSWCCA 507

Leave under Rule 4 was refused because no relevant direction or redirection was sought at trial, experienced trial counsel's omission was not shown to be a mere oversight, and the appellant did not demonstrate any possibility of real injustice or miscarriage of justice. In the circumstances, the absence of DNA testing did not directly attract an imperative Longman warning, the complainant did not identify the appellant as her attacker, the delay was comparatively brief, the jury had been properly directed on circumstantial evidence and the onus of proof, and the circumstantial case against the appellant was so powerful that the suggested direction would not have made any real difference...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Convictions / Application for Leave Pursuant to Rule 4 and Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court
Outcome
Leave refused pursuant to Rule 4; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['jury Directions' 'delay in Complaint of Sexual Assault' 'longman Warning' 'dna Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['jury Directions' 'delay in Complaint of Sexual Assault' 'longman Warning' 'dna Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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 Convictions / Application for Leave Pursuant to Rule 4 and Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury that the appellant had been deprived, through delay in complaint of the sexual assaults, of the possibility that forensic or DNA evidence might have exculpated him.' 'Whether the absence of DNA testing attracted the principles in Longman v The Queen as explained in Crampton v The Queen.' 'Whether leave should be granted under Rule 4 where no request for the direction or redirection was made at trial.' 'Whether any miscarriage of justice occurred.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave under Rule 4 was refused because no relevant direction or redirection was sought at trial, experienced trial counsel's omission was not shown to be a mere oversight, and the appellant did not demonstrate any possibility of real injustice or miscarriage of justice. In the circumstances, the absence of DNA testing did not directly attract an imperative Longman warning, the complainant did not identify the appellant as her attacker, the delay was comparatively brief, the jury had been properly directed on circumstantial evidence and the onus of proof, and the circumstantial case against the appellant was so powerful that the suggested direction would not have made any real difference...

Court Disposition

Leave refused pursuant to Rule 4; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave refused pursuant to Rule 4.' 'Appeal dismissed.']