REGINA v. TO [2002] NSWCCA 252

REGINA v. TO [2002] NSWCCA 252

The conviction appeal failed because the Crown case on counts other than counts eight to 10 was circumstantial and the jury was entitled to consider the identification evidence together with the DNA evidence and similarities between the offences; no further coincidence evidence direction was shown to be advantageous or necessary, Rule 4 applied, and no substantial miscarriage of justice was demonstrated. The sentence appeal failed because the cumulative sentences, including those for the offences against the 12 year old complainant, were not manifestly excessive having regard to the criminality involved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From Convictions and Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'identification Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'coincidence or Similarity Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'cumulative Sentences' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'identification Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'coincidence or Similarity Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'cumulative Sentences' 'manifest Excess']

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 and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From Convictions and Sentences Imposed in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's directions on coincidence evidence were inadequate and caused a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the identification evidence of the complainant in counts eight to 10 could be used in relation to all counts.' 'Whether the cumulative sentences, particularly for counts two to five involving the 12 year old complainant, resulted in a manifestly excessive total sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction appeal failed because the Crown case on counts other than counts eight to 10 was circumstantial and the jury was entitled to consider the identification evidence together with the DNA evidence and similarities between the offences; no further coincidence evidence direction was shown to be advantageous or necessary, Rule 4 applied, and no substantial miscarriage of justice was demonstrated. The sentence appeal failed because the cumulative sentences, including those for the offences against the 12 year old complainant, were not manifestly excessive having regard to the criminality involved.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

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