REGINA v Michael WHYTE [2006] NSWCCA 75

REGINA v Michael WHYTE [2006] NSWCCA 75

The appeal was dismissed because it was open to the jury, considering the whole of the circumstances including the appellant's conduct and the condoms, to infer beyond reasonable doubt that he detained the complainant with the particularised intent to have penile/vaginal or penile/anal intercourse; the intended use of the condoms was not an indispensable intermediate fact; leave to raise the unobjected admission ground was refused; and the majority found no error requiring intervention in the admission or unrestricted use of the complainant's complaint evidence, while Simpson J considered any error caused no miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal From District Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['detaining a Victim With Intent to Obtain an Advantage' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence of Intent' 'intermediate Facts' 'complaint Evidence in Sexual Cases' 'hearsay Evidence' 'lay Opinion Evidence' 'limiting Use of Evidence Under S136 Evidence Act 1995']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['detaining a Victim With Intent to Obtain an Advantage' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence of Intent' 'intermediate Facts' 'complaint Evidence in Sexual Cases' 'hearsay Evidence' 'lay Opinion Evidence' 'limiting Use of Evidence Under S136 Evidence Act 1995']

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 / New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal From District Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdict on the charge under s86(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.' 'Whether the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt as an indispensable intermediate fact that the appellant intended to use the condoms for penile intercourse with the complainant.' 'Whether the complainant\'s evidence that she told her mother "A man tried to rape me" was wrongly admitted.' 'Whether the trial judge should have limited the use of that complaint evidence under s136 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because it was open to the jury, considering the whole of the circumstances including the appellant's conduct and the condoms, to infer beyond reasonable doubt that he detained the complainant with the particularised intent to have penile/vaginal or penile/anal intercourse; the intended use of the condoms was not an indispensable intermediate fact; leave to raise the unobjected admission ground was refused; and the majority found no error requiring intervention in the admission or unrestricted use of the complainant's complaint evidence, while Simpson J considered any error caused no miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']