REGINA v COLLINS [2001] NSWCCA 386

REGINA v COLLINS [2001] NSWCCA 386

The appeal was dismissed because, read as a whole, the summing up fairly and repeatedly put the defence case and the onus of proof; the complaint directions were consistent with s107 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the evidence; the delays of weeks for the 1998 allegations and about two years for the 1996 allegations caused no identified forensic disadvantage requiring a Longman warning; the challenged references to KM's motive to lie were confined to a specific issue about the animal farm evidence and did not reverse the onus; and, despite an unfortunate reference to considering context, the jury were sufficiently directed to consider each count separately and were not invited to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal Against Convictions After District Court Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Offences' 'jury Directions' 'summing Up' 'complaint Evidence' 'delay in Complaint' 'longman Warning' 'motive to Lie' 'context Evidence' 'multiple Complainants']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['sexual Offences' 'jury Directions' 'summing Up' 'complaint Evidence' 'delay in Complaint' 'longman Warning' 'motive to Lie' 'context Evidence' 'multiple Complainants']

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 / Appeal to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal Against Convictions After District Court Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge failed to put the defence case fairly in the summing up.' 'Whether the directions about failure or delay in complaint were inadequate or unsupported by evidence.' 'Whether the circumstances required a Longman direction about forensic disadvantage caused by delay.' "Whether directions concerning KM's motive to lie improperly invited the jury to ask why the complainant would lie." 'Whether the jury should have been directed that evidence of AB and NB could not be used as proof of guilt on offences involving KM alone.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, read as a whole, the summing up fairly and repeatedly put the defence case and the onus of proof; the complaint directions were consistent with s107 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the evidence; the delays of weeks for the 1998 allegations and about two years for the 1996 allegations caused no identified forensic disadvantage requiring a Longman warning; the challenged references to KM's motive to lie were confined to a specific issue about the animal farm evidence and did not reverse the onus; and, despite an unfortunate reference to considering context, the jury were sufficiently directed to consider each count separately and were not invited to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']