Long (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 212

Long (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 212

The trial judge's warnings regarding audio visual evidence complied with statutory requirements; the misdescription of complaint evidence as 'independent' had no real bearing on the jury's understanding; replaying the recorded interviews in court was not improper and was consistent with established protocol; the direction about 'appropriate concessions' did not lead to miscarriage; the allegedly inconsistent verdicts were logically explained; on the evidence, it was open to the jury to convict; the sentence, although lengthy, was not manifestly excessive given the gravity and circumstances of the offending.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused in respect of grounds 1, 2, 5 and 6; otherwise leave granted; appeal dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'child Sex Offences' 'evidence in Chief Via Audio Visual Link' 'complaint Evidence' 'jury Warnings' 'manifest Excess in Sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'child Sex Offences' 'evidence in Chief Via Audio Visual Link' 'complaint Evidence' 'jury Warnings' 'manifest Excess in Sentencing']

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 / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Adequacy and timing of jury warnings regarding audio visual and pre-recorded evidence' 'Misdescription of complaint evidence as independent' 'Replay of recorded interviews for the jury' "Directions on 'appropriate concessions'" 'Alleged inconsistent verdicts' 'Unreasonableness of verdicts' 'Manifest excess in sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's warnings regarding audio visual evidence complied with statutory requirements; the misdescription of complaint evidence as 'independent' had no real bearing on the jury's understanding; replaying the recorded interviews in court was not improper and was consistent with established protocol; the direction about 'appropriate concessions' did not lead to miscarriage; the allegedly inconsistent verdicts were logically explained; on the evidence, it was open to the jury to convict; the sentence, although lengthy, was not manifestly excessive given the gravity and circumstances of the offending.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused in respect of grounds 1, 2, 5 and 6; otherwise leave granted; appeal dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave under r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) in respect of grounds 1, 2 and 5.' 'Refuse leave to appeal in respect of ground 6.' 'Otherwise grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.']