R v JGW [1999] NSWCCA 116

R v JGW [1999] NSWCCA 116

The trial judge did not err in permitting certain amendments to counts or in directing acquittals where objective evidence supported the defence. The evidence did not demonstrate unfairness to the appellant regarding particulars of date. The ERISP was properly admitted as it was relevant and not prejudicial. Complaint evidence was admissible in the context of alleged fabrication, and the directions to the jury regarding delay, reliability and lies were adequate. The verdicts on all counts except count 4 were supported by the evidence and free of material error. In relation to count 4, the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was under ten years;...

Parties
Respondent: Crown; Appellant: JGW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Following District Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Offences Homosexual Intercourse, Attempted Homosexual Intercourse, Indecent Assault, Jury Directions Delay in Complaint, Unreliability of Complaint Evidence, Directions on Lies, Verdicts Unsafe and Unsatisfactory, Sentencing Principle of Totality, Practice and Procedure Amendment of Indictment, Admissibility of ERISP, Credibility and Weight
Criminal Law Evidence Offences Homosexual Intercourse Attempted Homosexual Intercourse Indecent Assault Jury Directions Delay in Complaint Unreliability of Complaint Evidence Directions on Lies +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 42 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Respondent

JGW

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Following District Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether errors in jury directions rendered the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory
  2. 2 Whether complaint evidence was properly admitted and directions sufficient
  3. 3 Whether tender of ERISP should have been excluded

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in permitting certain amendments to counts or in directing acquittals where objective evidence supported the defence. The evidence did not demonstrate unfairness to the appellant regarding particulars of date. The ERISP was properly admitted as it was relevant and not prejudicial. Complaint evidence was admissible in the context of alleged fabrication, and the directions to the jury regarding delay, reliability and lies were adequate. The verdicts on all counts except count 4 were supported by the evidence and free of material error. In relation to count 4, the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was under ten years;...

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Appeal in respect of count 4 allowed and conviction for that count quashed. Conviction for homosexual intercourse with a male person aged ten years or above but under the age of eighteen years substituted.
  • Leave granted to appeal against sentence.