JJB v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 126

JJB v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 126

Although the summing up was deficient because it did not expressly tell the jury that delay had made it difficult for the appellant to test the complainant's evidence and because it left prejudice from delay as a question when significant delay creates prejudice, experienced trial counsel took no objection and the overall summing up repeatedly and strongly warned the jury about delay, danger in convicting on the complainant's evidence alone, and the need to scrutinise truthfulness and accuracy. Any redirection may have reduced the forensic benefit of the generous way delay was described. No extended Longman warning was required in the circumstances of counts 4 and 5, given the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave Under Rule 4 of the Rules Under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Outcome
Leave under Rule 4 refused and the appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Offences' 'delay in Complaint' 'longman Warning' 'extended Longman Warning' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'rule 4 Leave']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['child Sexual Offences' 'delay in Complaint' 'longman Warning' 'extended Longman Warning' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'rule 4 Leave']

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 for Leave Under Rule 4 of the Rules Under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge failed adequately to warn the jury of forensic disadvantage suffered by the appellant because of delay in testing and meeting the complainant's evidence." 'Whether the trial judge was required to warn the jury about the fragility of youthful recollection and possible distortion of memory over time.' 'Whether, despite no complaint being made at trial, leave under Rule 4 should be granted because the summing up caused a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the summing up was deficient because it did not expressly tell the jury that delay had made it difficult for the appellant to test the complainant's evidence and because it left prejudice from delay as a question when significant delay creates prejudice, experienced trial counsel took no objection and the overall summing up repeatedly and strongly warned the jury about delay, danger in convicting on the complainant's evidence alone, and the need to scrutinise truthfulness and accuracy. Any redirection may have reduced the forensic benefit of the generous way delay was described. No extended Longman warning was required in the circumstances of counts 4 and 5, given the...

Court Disposition

Leave under Rule 4 refused and the appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave under Rule 4 refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']