GE v R [2018] NSWCCA 91

GE v R [2018] NSWCCA 91

The trial judge's directions were sufficient and not deficient in any relevant respect. The jury were told that any admissions could not separately or together prove guilt on any count, could only be considered with the other evidence, and could not be used for tendency reasoning. The direction was consistent with ARS v R and Rolfe v R. Because the proposed additional direction was not warranted and the ground lacked merit, leave under r 4 was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Sexual Offences Against a Child Family Member / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Leave Under R 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules (nsw); Conviction Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'sexual Offences Against a Child Family Member' 'admissions' 'uncharged Sexual Conduct' 'jury Directions' 'tendency Reasoning' 'criminal Appeal Rules (nsw), R 4']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'sexual Offences Against a Child Family Member' 'admissions' 'uncharged Sexual Conduct' 'jury Directions' 'tendency Reasoning' 'criminal Appeal Rules (nsw), R 4']

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 Offences Against a Child Family Member / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Leave Under R 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules (nsw); Conviction Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately as to the use they could make of alleged admissions by the applicant.' 'Whether the jury should have been directed that general admissions could be used only if satisfied that they related to or at least encompassed the charged conduct.' 'Whether leave under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) should be granted where no complaint about the directions was made at trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's directions were sufficient and not deficient in any relevant respect. The jury were told that any admissions could not separately or together prove guilt on any count, could only be considered with the other evidence, and could not be used for tendency reasoning. The direction was consistent with ARS v R and Rolfe v R. Because the proposed additional direction was not warranted and the ground lacked merit, leave under r 4 was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']