TB v R [2019] NSWCCA 224

TB v R [2019] NSWCCA 224

The jury's verdicts of conviction on counts 1, 2, and 5 were open on the evidence and not unreasonable; the tendency evidence was admissible and had significant probative value despite the time gap; the Markuleski direction was adequate; no miscarriage of justice resulted from cross-examination; the sentence was not manifestly excessive nor affected by error; the appeal fails.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'child Sexual Offences' 'tendency Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'cross Examination and Evidence Act Compliance' 'manifest Excess in Sentencing']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'child Sexual Offences' 'tendency Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'cross Examination and Evidence Act Compliance' 'manifest Excess in Sentencing']

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 / Judgment on Appeal From District Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether jury verdicts were unreasonable having regard to evidence and acquittals on other counts' 'Whether tendency evidence was admissible and used retrospectively' 'Whether the Markuleski direction to the jury was adequate' 'Whether the trial miscarried due to non-compliance with s 44 Evidence Act cross-examination rules' 'Whether the assessment of objective seriousness in sentencing was exaggerated and sentence manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's verdicts of conviction on counts 1, 2, and 5 were open on the evidence and not unreasonable; the tendency evidence was admissible and had significant probative value despite the time gap; the Markuleski direction was adequate; no miscarriage of justice resulted from cross-examination; the sentence was not manifestly excessive nor affected by error; the appeal fails.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.' 'Appeal dismissed.']