BONEY v R [2008] NSWCCA 165

BONEY v R [2008] NSWCCA 165

Although there were errors in the Crown's use of relationship evidence and in the judge’s directions that risked improper tendency reasoning and allowed inadequate separate consideration of charges, no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred in respect of the convictions due to the strength of the Crown case; however, the original sentences were manifestly excessive and must be quashed in part and replaced with new sentences as specified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence (except on counts 1 and 3) allowed; sentences for counts 2 and 4 to 11 and related charges quashed and various fixed terms imposed as specified; parole eligibility date set.
Legal Topics
['evidence—relationship/context Evidence' 'jury Directions—propensity Reasoning' 'sentencing—manifest Excess' 'consent in Sexual Offences' 'separate Consideration of Charges']
['criminal Law'] ['evidence—relationship/context Evidence' 'jury Directions—propensity Reasoning' 'sentencing—manifest Excess' 'consent in Sexual Offences' 'separate Consideration of Charges']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether admission and treatment of relationship/context evidence at trial was improper or unfairly prejudicial' 'Whether the trial judge’s jury directions allowed impermissible propensity reasoning' 'Whether each charge was properly considered separately by the jury' 'Whether summing up of the defence case was sufficiently balanced' 'Whether the original sentences were manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there were errors in the Crown's use of relationship evidence and in the judge’s directions that risked improper tendency reasoning and allowed inadequate separate consideration of charges, no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred in respect of the convictions due to the strength of the Crown case; however, the original sentences were manifestly excessive and must be quashed in part and replaced with new sentences as specified.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence (except on counts 1 and 3) allowed; sentences for counts 2 and 4 to 11 and related charges quashed and various fixed terms imposed as specified; parole eligibility date set.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted' 'Appeal against sentence, except on counts 1 and 3, allowed' 'Appeal against sentences on counts 1 and 3 dismissed' 'Sentences on counts 2 and 4 to 11 quashed and replaced as follows:' 'Count 2: 3 years imprisonment, fixed term from 22...