Regina v KCW [1999] NSWCCA 112

Regina v KCW [1999] NSWCCA 112

The appeal was allowed because the Crown Prosecutor's cross-examination improperly required the appellant to assert that Crown witnesses were lying, thereby confining the credibility issue to fabrication and creating a risk of miscarriage of justice. In addition, the guilty verdict on count 1 was unreasonable because it depended on evidence of an alleged event thirty-five years earlier on the complainant's fourth birthday, supported only by her mother's evidence. Although count 2 was open on the evidence, the Court declined to order a new trial given the age of the allegation, the acquittal on the most serious count, and the sentence already substantially served.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal From District Court Jury Convictions on Two Counts of Indecently Assaulting a Female Under the Age of Sixteen Years
Outcome
Appeal allowed; verdicts of guilty on counts 1 and 2 quashed; verdicts of acquittal directed on counts 1 and 2.
Legal Topics
['jury Directions' 'corroboration' 'onus of Proof' 'motive to Lie' 'impermissible Cross Examination of Accused' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'delayed Complaint of Childhood Sexual Offences']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['jury Directions' 'corroboration' 'onus of Proof' 'motive to Lie' 'impermissible Cross Examination of Accused' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'delayed Complaint of Childhood Sexual Offences']

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 From District Court Jury Convictions on Two Counts of Indecently Assaulting a Female Under the Age of Sixteen Years

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in directions, or failed to direct adequately, in relation to corroboration.' 'Whether the trial judge reversed the onus of proof in relation to whether Crown witnesses had "put their heads together" or had a motive to lie.' 'Whether directions suggested in R v Uhrig were required.' 'Whether the trial miscarried by reason of impermissible cross-examination of the appellant by the Crown Prosecutor.' 'Whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.' 'Whether verdicts of guilty should be quashed and acquittals directed rather than a new trial ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Crown Prosecutor's cross-examination improperly required the appellant to assert that Crown witnesses were lying, thereby confining the credibility issue to fabrication and creating a risk of miscarriage of justice. In addition, the guilty verdict on count 1 was unreasonable because it depended on evidence of an alleged event thirty-five years earlier on the complainant's fourth birthday, supported only by her mother's evidence. Although count 2 was open on the evidence, the Court declined to order a new trial given the age of the allegation, the acquittal on the most serious count, and the sentence already substantially served.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; verdicts of guilty on counts 1 and 2 quashed; verdicts of acquittal directed on counts 1 and 2.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the verdict of guilty on each of counts 1 and 2.' 'Direct a verdict of acquittal on each of counts 1 and 2.']