REGINA v FLOOD [1999] NSWCCA 198

REGINA v FLOOD [1999] NSWCCA 198

The appeal was dismissed because no reversible error or miscarriage of justice was established. The majority held that the trial judge was entitled to find that the complainant's evidence was not unreliable by reason of mental or physical disability and, alternatively, that detailed reliability directions could constitute good reasons not to give a s165(2) warning. The complaint evidence, summing-up and withdrawal of consent complaints failed in substance, and the whole of the material showed a strong Crown case on the 28 November 1996 count with no miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'jury Directions' 'unreliable Evidence Warning' 'evidence Act 1995 S165' 'evidence of Complaint' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'withdrawal of Consent']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'jury Directions' 'unreliable Evidence Warning' 'evidence Act 1995 S165' 'evidence of Complaint' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'withdrawal of Consent']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in declining to direct the jury under s165(1)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 that the complainant's evidence may be unreliable." 'Whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury as to how it was to use evidence of complaint.' "Whether the summing up impermissibly favoured the prosecution and whether the jury should have been directed to disregard the judge's opinion unless it accorded with their own." 'Whether the trial judge erred in declining to direct the jury as to the law of withdrawal of consent.' 'Whether the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory or involved a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because no reversible error or miscarriage of justice was established. The majority held that the trial judge was entitled to find that the complainant's evidence was not unreliable by reason of mental or physical disability and, alternatively, that detailed reliability directions could constitute good reasons not to give a s165(2) warning. The complaint evidence, summing-up and withdrawal of consent complaints failed in substance, and the whole of the material showed a strong Crown case on the 28 November 1996 count with no miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to raise grounds 2, 3 and 4 refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']