GG v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 230

GG v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 230

The hearing of the appellant's trial commenced on 23 March 2009, after the commencement of the amended Evidence Act 1995, s 165B, so the trial was governed by s 165B and not by the common law Longman requirement in the form contended for by the appellant. The complaint-direction ground caused no miscarriage because the complainant's credibility was squarely before the jury, there was significant corroboration, and the stance taken at trial appeared tactical. The sentencing judge did not intend to impose a 50 per cent non-parole period for the aggregate sentence, and the total sentence and non-parole period were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Following District Court Jury Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Offences' 'delay in Complaint' 'longman Direction' 'forensic Disadvantage' 'transitional Provisions' 'cumulation of Sentences']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'statutory Interpretation' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Offences' 'delay in Complaint' 'longman Direction' 'forensic Disadvantage' 'transitional Provisions' 'cumulation of Sentences']

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 and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Following District Court Jury Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred by failing to give an adequate warning in accordance with Longman v R [1989] HCA 60; (1989) 168 CLR 79.' 'Whether the trial was governed by Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 294AA or Evidence Act 1995, s 165B.' 'Whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury in relation to delay in complaint.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account the effect of cumulation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing of the appellant's trial commenced on 23 March 2009, after the commencement of the amended Evidence Act 1995, s 165B, so the trial was governed by s 165B and not by the common law Longman requirement in the form contended for by the appellant. The complaint-direction ground caused no miscarriage because the complainant's credibility was squarely before the jury, there was significant corroboration, and the stance taken at trial appeared tactical. The sentencing judge did not intend to impose a 50 per cent non-parole period for the aggregate sentence, and the total sentence and non-parole period were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']