PGM v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 310

PGM v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 310

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge was not entitled to conclude that the appellant intentionally raised good character by his answers about not liking the particular sort of image on his computer, and in any event the discretion miscarried when the Crown was permitted to cross-examine about numerous highly prejudicial child pornographic images. That evidence and questioning were likely to overwhelm or divert the jury and caused a miscarriage of justice, so the appellant was not fairly tried according to law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions set aside; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse With a Person Under the Age of Ten Years' 'indecent Assault of a Person Under the Age of Ten Years' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'tendency Evidence' 'good Character Evidence' 'cross Examination of Accused' 'incompetence of Trial Counsel' 'fresh Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Intercourse With a Person Under the Age of Ten Years' 'indecent Assault of a Person Under the Age of Ten Years' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'tendency Evidence' 'good Character Evidence' 'cross Examination of Accused' 'incompetence of Trial Counsel' 'fresh Evidence']

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 Convictions and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt." "Whether trial counsel was incompetent in relation to evidence about the appellant's asserted inability to ejaculate." "Whether evidence of an image matching the complainant's description was correctly admitted." 'Whether the appellant raised good character and whether the discretion to permit Crown cross-examination in rebuttal miscarried.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge was not entitled to conclude that the appellant intentionally raised good character by his answers about not liking the particular sort of image on his computer, and in any event the discretion miscarried when the Crown was permitted to cross-examine about numerous highly prejudicial child pornographic images. That evidence and questioning were likely to overwhelm or divert the jury and caused a miscarriage of justice, so the appellant was not fairly tried according to law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions set aside; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal and set aside the convictions.' 'Order a new trial.']