R v Houda [1999] NSWCCA 372

R v Houda [1999] NSWCCA 372

The trial judge adequately directed the jury that people tell lies for different reasons, that the appellant's explanation had to be considered carefully before the jury could conclude that he lied because he knew he was guilty, and that the lies did not themselves prove the charge. Because the directions were correct and sufficient, the proposed ground had no merit and leave to argue the point not taken at trial was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Sexual Assault Without Consent Contrary to S 61 B(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault Without Consent' 'use of Lies as Evidence of Consciousness of Guilt' 'jury Directions' 'leave to Argue Ground Not Taken at Trial']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Assault Without Consent' 'use of Lies as Evidence of Consciousness of Guilt' 'jury Directions' 'leave to Argue Ground Not Taken at 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

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Sexual Assault Without Consent Contrary to S 61 B(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's directions on the use of lies told out of court as showing consciousness of guilt were correct and sufficient." 'Whether leave should be granted under rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to argue a point not taken at trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge adequately directed the jury that people tell lies for different reasons, that the appellant's explanation had to be considered carefully before the jury could conclude that he lied because he knew he was guilty, and that the lies did not themselves prove the charge. Because the directions were correct and sufficient, the proposed ground had no merit and leave to argue the point not taken at trial was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to argue the point not taken at trial refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.' 'Conviction and sentence confirmed.']