R v Burt [2003] NSWCCA 248

R v Burt [2003] NSWCCA 248

Leave to argue the grounds was refused because the summing up, read as a whole and in the context of the trial, adequately conveyed the Crown onus and standard of proof and the need to examine the complainant's evidence carefully. Although further Murray and consent-related directions may have been desirable, no such directions were sought at trial and the omissions did not cause a miscarriage of justice, given that the issues were whether the complainant had been forced or whether the alleged acts occurred at all.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to argue Grounds 1 to 4 refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['assault With an Act of Indecency' 'attempted Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'jury Directions' 'standard of Proof' 'murray Direction' 'consent and Knowledge of Lack of Consent' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['assault With an Act of Indecency' 'attempted Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'jury Directions' 'standard of Proof' 'murray Direction' 'consent and Knowledge of Lack of Consent' '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 / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury on how to apply the standard of proof.' "Whether the trial judge should have given a Murray direction requiring careful scrutiny of the complainant's evidence." "Whether the absence of directions on the appellant's knowledge of, or recklessness as to, lack of consent for the indecent assault counts caused a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the absence of comparable directions for the attempted sexual intercourse without consent count caused a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to argue the grounds was refused because the summing up, read as a whole and in the context of the trial, adequately conveyed the Crown onus and standard of proof and the need to examine the complainant's evidence carefully. Although further Murray and consent-related directions may have been desirable, no such directions were sought at trial and the omissions did not cause a miscarriage of justice, given that the issues were whether the complainant had been forced or whether the alleged acts occurred at all.

Court Disposition

Leave to argue Grounds 1 to 4 refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to argue Ground 1 to 4 refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']