Tully v The Queen [2006] HCA 56

Tully v The Queen [2006] HCA 56

A majority of the Court found that, in the circumstances (including the age of the complainant, delay in complaint, and reliance on uncorroborated evidence), the trial judge was required, in accordance with Robinson v The Queen, to direct the jury to scrutinise the complainant’s evidence with great care before convicting. Because such a direction or warning was not given, and this was not a case for the application of the proviso, a miscarriage of justice occurred and a retrial should be ordered. However, the trial judge was not required to give a Longman warning in the circumstances, as the delay was not of sufficient character and did not create an identified forensic disadvantage.

Parties
Appellant: Raymond Douglas Tully; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia – Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (by majority).
Legal Topics
Corroboration Warning, Judicial Directions (jury Instructions), Uncorroborated Evidence, Delay in Complaint, Uncharged Acts / Relationship Evidence, Sexual Offences Against Children
Criminal Law Evidence Corroboration Warning Judicial Directions (jury Instructions) Uncorroborated Evidence Delay in Complaint Uncharged Acts / Relationship Evidence Sexual Offences Against Children

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Douglas Tully

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia – Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge was required to give a warning or direction to the jury regarding the need to scrutinise the complainant’s evidence with care before arriving at a conclusion of guilt, in accordance with Robinson v The Queen and/or Longman v The Queen
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in the directions given to the jury on the use of uncharged acts (relationship evidence) and the standard of proof required for such acts

Ratio Decidendi

A majority of the Court found that, in the circumstances (including the age of the complainant, delay in complaint, and reliance on uncorroborated evidence), the trial judge was required, in accordance with Robinson v The Queen, to direct the jury to scrutinise the complainant’s evidence with great care before convicting. Because such a direction or warning was not given, and this was not a case for the application of the proviso, a miscarriage of justice occurred and a retrial should be ordered. However, the trial judge was not required to give a Longman warning in the circumstances, as the delay was not of sufficient character and did not create an identified forensic disadvantage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (by majority).

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.