GP v R [2016] NSWCCA 150

GP v R [2016] NSWCCA 150

Evidence of distress and tears when the complainant narrated the assaults did not constitute an 'injury' attributable to sexual intercourse for the purpose of Criminal Procedure Act s 293(4)(c), and exclusion from cross-examination was correct; the sentencing judge did not make Muldrock error nor was the sentence manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; grounds of conviction appeal dismissed; leave refused and appeal dismissed on sentence grounds.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'sexual Offences' 'sentencing' 'exceptions Under Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw) S 293' 'manifestly Excessive Sentencing' 'muldrock Error' 'complaint Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'sexual Offences' 'sentencing' 'exceptions Under Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw) S 293' 'manifestly Excessive Sentencing' 'muldrock Error' 'complaint Evidence']

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 / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence should have been admissible under an exception to Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 293' "Whether 'injury' attributable to sexual intercourse includes distress and tears" 'Whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive' 'Whether sentencing judge fell into so-called Muldrock error' 'Interaction between Criminal Procedure Act s 293 and Evidence Act s 137']

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of distress and tears when the complainant narrated the assaults did not constitute an 'injury' attributable to sexual intercourse for the purpose of Criminal Procedure Act s 293(4)(c), and exclusion from cross-examination was correct; the sentencing judge did not make Muldrock error nor was the sentence manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; grounds of conviction appeal dismissed; leave refused and appeal dismissed on sentence grounds.

Orders

  • ['Ground 1 is dismissed' 'Leave to appeal refused on ground 2' 'Leave to appeal granted on grounds 3 – 5' 'Appeal dismissed on grounds 3 – 5']