Colquhoun v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 191

Colquhoun v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 191

The admission and use of evidence to show sexual interest amounted to impermissible tendency reasoning, and erroneous directions were given to the jury regarding use of uncharged conduct; this constituted a miscarriage of justice, requiring convictions to be quashed and a new trial directed.

Parties
Appellant: Richard Colquhoun; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal After Conviction in District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed, new trial directed.
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Tendency Evidence, Jury Directions, Miscarriage of Justice, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Tendency Evidence Jury Directions Miscarriage of Justice Admissibility of 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Colquhoun

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal After Conviction in District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admission and use of evidence of sexual interest constituted a miscarriage of justice
  2. 2 Whether trial judge misdirected the jury regarding use of evidence of uncharged conduct
  3. 3 Whether Crown Prosecutor's cross-examination departed from standards of fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The admission and use of evidence to show sexual interest amounted to impermissible tendency reasoning, and erroneous directions were given to the jury regarding use of uncharged conduct; this constituted a miscarriage of justice, requiring convictions to be quashed and a new trial directed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, convictions quashed, new trial directed.

Orders

  • Grant leave under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to rely on Appeal Grounds 1 and 2.
  • Allow the appeal.