Peterson, Roger David & Ors v The Queen [1979] FCA 130

Peterson, Roger David & Ors v The Queen [1979] FCA 130

The Crown Prosecutor's opening remarks, read in context as an explanation of trial procedure and the Crown's burden, did not amount to a comment that the appellants had failed to give evidence on oath and could not reasonably be supposed to have influenced the result. The fourth count was properly tried with the other counts because all counts arose from events closely related in time, place and personnel. Evidence of later events was admissible as part of a relevant chain of events bearing on consent and the accused persons' state of belief. The prosecutrix's naked flight, screaming and subsequent conduct were supported by independent evidence and were capable of being treated as...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 1979
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeals From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory: Joe Agresta and Gabriel Falla Appealed Against Conviction and Sentence; Roger David Peterson and Christopher John Peterson Appealed Against Sentence Only.
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['assault With Intent to Rape' 'aiding and Abetting' 'joinder and Concurrent Trial of Counts' 'evidence of Subsequent Events' 'corroboration in Sexual Cases' 'distressed Condition of Complainant' 'comment on Accused Failure to Give Evidence' 'appeals Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['assault With Intent to Rape' 'aiding and Abetting' 'joinder and Concurrent Trial of Counts' 'evidence of Subsequent Events' 'corroboration in Sexual Cases' 'distressed Condition of Complainant' 'comment on Accused Failure to Give Evidence' 'appeals Against Sentence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeals From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory: Joe Agresta and Gabriel Falla Appealed Against Conviction and Sentence; Roger David Peterson and Christopher John Peterson Appealed Against Sentence Only.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether remarks in the Crown Prosecutor's opening address about the options of the accused contravened s.74(1) of the Evidence Ordinance 1971 or prejudiced the trial." 'Whether the fourth count against Gabriel Falla for assaulting and beating the prosecutrix should have been tried concurrently with the assault with intent to rape counts.' 'Whether evidence of events occurring after the lounge room incidents, including events in the bedroom and after the prosecutrix fled, was admissible.' 'Whether evidence of the distressed condition of the prosecutrix was admissible and capable in law of amounting to corroboration.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were affected by error of principle or were outside the proper range.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown Prosecutor's opening remarks, read in context as an explanation of trial procedure and the Crown's burden, did not amount to a comment that the appellants had failed to give evidence on oath and could not reasonably be supposed to have influenced the result. The fourth count was properly tried with the other counts because all counts arose from events closely related in time, place and personnel. Evidence of later events was admissible as part of a relevant chain of events bearing on consent and the accused persons' state of belief. The prosecutrix's naked flight, screaming and subsequent conduct were supported by independent evidence and were capable of being treated as...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeals of Joe Agresta and Gabriel Falla against conviction and sentence be dismissed.' 'The appeals of Roger David Peterson and Christopher John Peterson against sentence be dismissed.']