R v Milton [2004] NSWCCA 195

R v Milton [2004] NSWCCA 195

The joint trial did not miscarry because it was open to the trial judge to find that the complainants' evidence, viewed together and in the absence of any suggestion of concoction, had sufficient probative force as tendency evidence and that its probative value substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect. The directions concerning confirmatory evidence did not mislead the jury or divert them from a proper assessment of the evidence. Although there was tension in the sentencing remarks about count 9 and total criminality, appellate intervention was not warranted because the aggregate sentence was not shown to be excessive and no error was shown in refusing to find special circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted, but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'separate Trials' 'confirmatory Evidence' 'corroboration Directions' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'detaining for Advantage' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'pearce V the Queen']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['tendency Evidence' 'separate Trials' 'confirmatory Evidence' 'corroboration Directions' 'sexual Offences Against Children' 'detaining for Advantage' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'pearce V the Queen']

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 Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge ought to have directed separate trials in respect of each complainant.' 'Whether the evidence of each complainant was admissible in support of the other as tendency evidence under the Evidence Act, 1995.' "Whether the trial judge's directions about evidence said to confirm the complainants' testimony were erroneous or inadequate." 'Whether the sentence on count 9 was imposed contrary to Pearce v The Queen by encompassing the criminality of other counts.' 'Whether special circumstances should have been found so as to reduce the effective non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The joint trial did not miscarry because it was open to the trial judge to find that the complainants' evidence, viewed together and in the absence of any suggestion of concoction, had sufficient probative force as tendency evidence and that its probative value substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect. The directions concerning confirmatory evidence did not mislead the jury or divert them from a proper assessment of the evidence. Although there was tension in the sentencing remarks about count 9 and total criminality, appellate intervention was not warranted because the aggregate sentence was not shown to be excessive and no error was shown in refusing to find special circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted, but appeal dismissed.

Orders

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