RB v R [2016] NSWCCA 62

RB v R [2016] NSWCCA 62

Although leave under rule 4 was granted because the sole ground concerned the onus of proof, the appeal failed because the appellant had raised a motive-to-lie theory in his recorded interview, the Crown was entitled to respond to it, the trial judge gave the requested Jovanovic direction focused on the complainant whose evidence was essential to proof of the offences, and the summing up otherwise made clear that the appellant was not required to prove anything and that the Crown bore the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The jury would not have been left with the impression that the appellant had to prove that any witness had a motive to lie.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal Requiring Leave Under Rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules
Outcome
Leave granted to rely on the sole ground of appeal under rule 4; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'crown Address' 'motive to Lie' 'jovanovic Direction' 'onus of Proof' 'rule 4 Leave']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'crown Address' 'motive to Lie' 'jovanovic Direction' 'onus of Proof' 'rule 4 Leave']

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 / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal Requiring Leave Under Rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown address effectively invited the jury to reason that Crown witnesses would not lie and thereby caused a miscarriage of justice.' "Whether the trial judge's Jovanovic direction should have extended beyond the complainant to KA and Mr O'Loughlin and specifically addressed the Crown's rhetorical questions." 'Whether leave should be granted under rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules because no objection or redirection request was made at trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although leave under rule 4 was granted because the sole ground concerned the onus of proof, the appeal failed because the appellant had raised a motive-to-lie theory in his recorded interview, the Crown was entitled to respond to it, the trial judge gave the requested Jovanovic direction focused on the complainant whose evidence was essential to proof of the offences, and the summing up otherwise made clear that the appellant was not required to prove anything and that the Crown bore the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The jury would not have been left with the impression that the appellant had to prove that any witness had a motive to lie.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to rely on the sole ground of appeal under rule 4; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the appellant to rely on the sole ground of appeal under rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']