R v James Duncan SMITH [2009] NSWDC 410

R v James Duncan SMITH [2009] NSWDC 410

There was not sufficient evidence to justify a warning to the jury that delay in complaint is relevant to the complainant's credibility as used in s 294(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The context restricts 'credibility' to whether the allegation is false or fabricated, not to issues of memory or recollection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Jury Direction Ruling
Outcome
Application for warning refused
Legal Topics
['jury Directions' 'delay in Complaint' 'credibility of Complainant' 'criminal Procedure Act 1986 S 294']
['criminal Law'] ['jury Directions' 'delay in Complaint' 'credibility of Complainant' 'criminal Procedure Act 1986 S 294']

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 / Jury Direction Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the judge should direct the jury that delay in complaint is relevant to the complainant's credibility under s 294(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986"]

Ratio Decidendi

There was not sufficient evidence to justify a warning to the jury that delay in complaint is relevant to the complainant's credibility as used in s 294(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The context restricts 'credibility' to whether the allegation is false or fabricated, not to issues of memory or recollection.

Court Disposition

Application for warning refused

Orders

  • ['The judge will not warn the jury that delay in complaint is relevant to credibility.']