Sharyn Ann Munn v Regina; Thomas Miller v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 61

Sharyn Ann Munn v Regina; Thomas Miller v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 61

The convictions could not stand because it was irregular to take the verdicts immediately after a juror complained of conduct he apparently attributed to the appellants and had discussed with two other jurors before verdicts, without proper inquiry or steps to remove the risk of miscarriage; the Court could not be satisfied the irregularity did not affect the verdicts. A further miscarriage of justice occurred when, after defence cross-examination about the complainant's sexual experience had been restricted under s293 Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the Crown submitted in closing that the complainant's account involved matters outside the experience of a seven- or eight-year-old. The delay...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Convictions and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions After a Joint Trial in the District Court
Outcome
The appeals are allowed and the convictions appealed from by both appellants are quashed. New trials are ordered.
Legal Topics
['juror Bias' 'extraneous Information Affecting Jury' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'sexual Offence Complainant Cross Examination' 'delay in Complaint Warning' 'unreasonable Verdict' "children's Evidence"]
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['juror Bias' 'extraneous Information Affecting Jury' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'sexual Offence Complainant Cross Examination' 'delay in Complaint Warning' 'unreasonable Verdict' "children's 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Convictions and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions After a Joint Trial in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury or make further inquiry after a juror complained of asserted out-of-court conduct by the appellants and told two other jurors about it before verdicts were reached.' "Whether s293 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 was wrongly interpreted so as to restrict cross-examination of the complainant about prior sexual experience, and whether the Crown's closing address about the complainant's lack of sexual experience caused unfairness." 'Whether the trial judge failed to give a required caution about prejudice caused by delay in complaint.' "Whether the tender of only part of the complainant's evidence and directions about the evidence tapes and transcripts were unfair." 'Whether a warning was required about the complainant being shown only one photograph of a stomach.' 'Whether the convictions were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions could not stand because it was irregular to take the verdicts immediately after a juror complained of conduct he apparently attributed to the appellants and had discussed with two other jurors before verdicts, without proper inquiry or steps to remove the risk of miscarriage; the Court could not be satisfied the irregularity did not affect the verdicts. A further miscarriage of justice occurred when, after defence cross-examination about the complainant's sexual experience had been restricted under s293 Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the Crown submitted in closing that the complainant's account involved matters outside the experience of a seven- or eight-year-old. The delay...

Court Disposition

The appeals are allowed and the convictions appealed from by both appellants are quashed. New trials are ordered.

Orders

  • ['The appeals are allowed and the convictions appealed from by both appellants are quashed.' 'New trials are ordered.']