R v HENMAN [2001] NSWCCA 4

R v HENMAN [2001] NSWCCA 4

The convictions had to be quashed because the trial judge failed to give the required Longman direction. The Court declined to order a new trial because of the totality of circumstances, including Crown failures at trial, the borderline strength of the Crown case, the appellant having served four and a half months of imprisonment, the age of the alleged offences, the absence of anything suggesting likely repetition, and the fact that the trial miscarried for reasons not directly the appellant's fault.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions; Consideration of Whether to Order a New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; appellant's convictions quashed; verdict of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent With a Person Under the Age of Ten Years' 'indecent Assault With a Person Under the Age of Ten Years' 'longman Direction' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'discretion to Order a New Trial' 'expert Evidence' 'cross Examination on Publications' "admission of Complainant's Journal Account"]
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent With a Person Under the Age of Ten Years' 'indecent Assault With a Person Under the Age of Ten Years' 'longman Direction' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'discretion to Order a New Trial' 'expert Evidence' 'cross Examination on Publications' "admission of Complainant's Journal Account"]

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 Against Convictions; Consideration of Whether to Order a New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge failed to give appropriate directions in accordance with R v. Longman.' 'Whether the verdicts were unreasonable or unsafe and unsatisfactory.' 'Whether, after quashing the convictions, the Court should order a new trial under s 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions had to be quashed because the trial judge failed to give the required Longman direction. The Court declined to order a new trial because of the totality of circumstances, including Crown failures at trial, the borderline strength of the Crown case, the appellant having served four and a half months of imprisonment, the age of the alleged offences, the absence of anything suggesting likely repetition, and the fact that the trial miscarried for reasons not directly the appellant's fault.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; appellant's convictions quashed; verdict of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed' "Appellant's convictions quashed" 'Verdict of acquittal entered']