Hamra v The Queen [2017] HCA 38

Hamra v The Queen [2017] HCA 38

Section 50(4) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) lawfully modifies the common law requirement for particularity, and B's evidence, when taken at its highest, was capable of establishing two or more acts of sexual exploitation within the relevant period. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not err in finding there was a case to answer or in granting permission to appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen John Hamra; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Persistent Sexual Exploitation of a Child, Evidentiary Particularity, Section 50 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (sa), Appeal Procedure, Permission to Appeal, Double Jeopardy
Criminal Law Persistent Sexual Exploitation of a Child Evidentiary Particularity Section 50 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (sa) Appeal Procedure Permission to Appeal Double Jeopardy

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen John Hamra

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the generalised nature of complainant's evidence was insufficient to identify two or more acts of sexual exploitation under s 50(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
  2. 2 Whether Court of Criminal Appeal erred in granting permission to appeal without express consideration of double jeopardy

Ratio Decidendi

Section 50(4) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) lawfully modifies the common law requirement for particularity, and B's evidence, when taken at its highest, was capable of establishing two or more acts of sexual exploitation within the relevant period. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not err in finding there was a case to answer or in granting permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.