R v JBV [2002] NSWCCA 212

R v JBV [2002] NSWCCA 212

The summing up to the jury was defective as it failed to specifically warn of the particular risk that recollection of childhood events is frequently erroneous and liable to distortion, as required by the principles in Longman v R and Crampton v R. This defect amounted to a miscarriage of justice necessitating quashing the convictions.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: JBV
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; verdicts of acquittal substituted for charges 1, 2, 4 and 5.
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Delay in Complaint, Longman Direction, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Delay in Complaint Longman Direction Jury Directions

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

JBV

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to adequately warn the jury of the danger in convicting the appellant due to mistaken recollection and forensic disadvantage as required by Longman v R.
  2. 2 Whether the summing up met the requirements of Crampton v R and Longman v R concerning warnings on the reliability of evidence and the risk of injustice caused by delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The summing up to the jury was defective as it failed to specifically warn of the particular risk that recollection of childhood events is frequently erroneous and liable to distortion, as required by the principles in Longman v R and Crampton v R. This defect amounted to a miscarriage of justice necessitating quashing the convictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; verdicts of acquittal substituted for charges 1, 2, 4 and 5.

Orders

  • The convictions and sentences are quashed.
  • In lieu of the convictions, verdicts of acquittal on charges 1, 2, 4 and 5 are substituted.