ROSS, James John v R [2012] NSWCCA 207

ROSS, James John v R [2012] NSWCCA 207

No miscarriage of justice was shown. The evidence against the appellant, principally the complainant's evidence together with the appellant's own evidence and cross-examination, made the convictions open to the jury. The trial judge gave clear directions limiting the use of evidence admissible only against the complainant's mother and directing that no inference could be drawn from the appellant's refusals to comment. The medical evidence was relevant only as consistency evidence and was properly explained to the jury. The acquittals on counts 15 and 18 had sound possible evidential bases and did not demonstrate inconsistency with the guilty verdicts on the remaining counts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application to Extend Time for Filing Notice of Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Time extended for filing the notice of appeal; appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Offences' 'joint Trial' 'separate Trials' 'no Comment Interview' 'medical Evidence' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Offences' 'joint Trial' 'separate Trials' 'no Comment Interview' 'medical Evidence' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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 / Application to Extend Time for Filing Notice of Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the joint trial with the complainant's mother created positive injustice or a miscarriage of justice for the appellant." 'Whether admission of the electronically recorded interview, including answers of "no comment", caused error or miscarriage of justice under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 89.' "Whether admission of medical evidence concerning the complainant's hymen was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial." 'Whether acquittals on counts 15 and 18 rendered the guilty verdicts on the remaining counts inconsistent, unsafe or unsatisfactory.' 'Whether any prejudice arose from the accumulation of the joint trial evidence and the admitted record of interview.']

Ratio Decidendi

No miscarriage of justice was shown. The evidence against the appellant, principally the complainant's evidence together with the appellant's own evidence and cross-examination, made the convictions open to the jury. The trial judge gave clear directions limiting the use of evidence admissible only against the complainant's mother and directing that no inference could be drawn from the appellant's refusals to comment. The medical evidence was relevant only as consistency evidence and was properly explained to the jury. The acquittals on counts 15 and 18 had sound possible evidential bases and did not demonstrate inconsistency with the guilty verdicts on the remaining counts.

Court Disposition

Time extended for filing the notice of appeal; appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Time be extended for the filing of a notice of appeal to the date of the filing of the notice of appeal herein.' 'Appeal against conviction dismissed.']