R v MM [2004] NSWCCA 81

R v MM [2004] NSWCCA 81

By majority (Levine J, Howie J), the trial judge's jury directions on the dangers of delay complied with Longman, adequately warning of the difficulties for the accused in preparing a defence due to the passage of time. Prosecutorial addresses, although containing objectionable remarks, did not undermine the effect of the warnings or result in a miscarriage of justice. The verdicts were rational and open on the evidence, and protective custody considerations were adequately factored into sentencing. Dissenting (Smart AJ) found that deficiencies in explanation of the Longman warning and prosecutorial address amounted to miscarriage, warranting a new trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed (majority: Levine J, Howie J). Leave to appeal sentence granted, but appeal against sentence dismissed. Dissenting (Smart AJ): Appeal allowed, convictions quashed, new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['longman Direction' 'criminal Trial Procedure' 'adequacy of Jury Warning' 'prosecutorial Address' 'delay in Complaint' 'credibility of Complainant' 'protective Custody in Sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['longman Direction' 'criminal Trial Procedure' 'adequacy of Jury Warning' 'prosecutorial Address' 'delay in Complaint' 'credibility of Complainant' 'protective Custody 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 / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge adequately warned the jury (Longman warning) regarding the dangers in convicting based on complainant's evidence after significant delay" "Whether the trial judge erred in failing to adequately instruct on the impact of delay on the complainant's credibility" 'Whether prosecutorial addresses undermined judicial directions and resulted in miscarriage of justice' 'Whether the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence' 'Whether the sentence failed to give sufficient weight to subjective circumstances and protective custody']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority (Levine J, Howie J), the trial judge's jury directions on the dangers of delay complied with Longman, adequately warning of the difficulties for the accused in preparing a defence due to the passage of time. Prosecutorial addresses, although containing objectionable remarks, did not undermine the effect of the warnings or result in a miscarriage of justice. The verdicts were rational and open on the evidence, and protective custody considerations were adequately factored into sentencing. Dissenting (Smart AJ) found that deficiencies in explanation of the Longman warning and prosecutorial address amounted to miscarriage, warranting a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed (majority: Levine J, Howie J). Leave to appeal sentence granted, but appeal against sentence dismissed. Dissenting (Smart AJ): Appeal allowed, convictions quashed, new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']