R v MDB [2005] NSWCCA 354

R v MDB [2005] NSWCCA 354

The evidence of complaint to the complainant's school friends and mother was admissible under s108(3)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 because senior counsel for the appellant expressly attacked the complainant's credibility by suggesting fabrication. The trial judge correctly considered the context and circumstances leading to the disclosure, and there was no demonstrated unfairness or error in the exercise of discretion. The directions on complaint and delay, while somewhat cursory, were adequate in the circumstances given the relatively brief delay, and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Parties
Appellant: MDB; Respondent: Regina (Crown)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Aggravated Indecent Assault, Admissibility of Evidence, Credibility of Witness, Prior Consistent Statement, Directions on Complaint and Delay
Criminal Law Aggravated Indecent Assault Admissibility of Evidence Credibility of Witness Prior Consistent Statement Directions on Complaint and Delay

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MDB

Appellant

Regina (Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of complaint to school friends and the complainant's mother under s108(3)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge gave adequate and proper directions to the jury on the issues of complaint and delay

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of complaint to the complainant's school friends and mother was admissible under s108(3)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 because senior counsel for the appellant expressly attacked the complainant's credibility by suggesting fabrication. The trial judge correctly considered the context and circumstances leading to the disclosure, and there was no demonstrated unfairness or error in the exercise of discretion. The directions on complaint and delay, while somewhat cursory, were adequate in the circumstances given the relatively brief delay, and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed