Lincoln v R [2024] NSWCCA 173

Lincoln v R [2024] NSWCCA 173

The tendency evidence relating to the Albert Road incident was properly admissible as there was evidence to support RS was under 18 at the time; there was no miscarriage of justice and no error in jury direction. The trial judge's reasons on substantial emotional harm were adequate due to the applicant's concession, and the aggregate sentence and non-parole period imposed were not manifestly excessive and were within discretionary range.

Parties
Applicant: Paul Joseph Lincoln; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal conviction refused; leave to appeal sentence granted; sentence appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeals Against Conviction, Appeals Against Sentence, Tendency Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Sentencing – Manifest Excess, Aggravating Factors, Historic Child Sexual Offences
Criminal Law Appeals Against Conviction Appeals Against Sentence Tendency Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Sentencing – Manifest Excess Aggravating Factors Historic Child Sexual Offences

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 41 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Joseph Lincoln

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of RS relating to the Albert Road incident was wrongly admitted as tendency evidence
  2. 2 Whether admission of such evidence resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether the jury were wrongly directed regarding the tendency evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The tendency evidence relating to the Albert Road incident was properly admissible as there was evidence to support RS was under 18 at the time; there was no miscarriage of justice and no error in jury direction. The trial judge's reasons on substantial emotional harm were adequate due to the applicant's concession, and the aggregate sentence and non-parole period imposed were not manifestly excessive and were within discretionary range.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal conviction refused; leave to appeal sentence granted; sentence appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Refuse leave to the applicant to appeal against his conviction.
  • Grant leave to the applicant to appeal against the sentence imposed on 24 March 2023.