WHS v R [2024] NSWCCA 242

WHS v R [2024] NSWCCA 242

There was no error or miscarriage of justice in excluding evidence concerning the complainant's prior sexual experience or activity under s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) because the Crown case did not disclose or imply that the complainant lacked prior sexual experience or activity; Traill DCJ's refusal to permanently stay the proceedings likewise involved no error as adequate opportunities remained to test the complainant's reliability and raise reasonable alternative explanations. However, the conviction on counts 1 and 4 could not be sustained beyond reasonable doubt because of irreconcilable changes in the complainant's evidence over time; the verdicts on those counts...

Parties
Applicant: WHS; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction, Post Retrial
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted in part; appeal upheld on ground 5 only; convictions on counts 1 and 4 quashed; aggregate sentence set aside; matter remitted for re-sentence on counts 2 and 5.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Sexual Offences Against Child, Admissibility of Evidence, Rape Shield Provisions, Permanent Stay of Prosecution, Unreasonable Verdicts
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Sexual Offences Against Child Admissibility of Evidence Rape Shield Provisions Permanent Stay of Prosecution Unreasonable Verdicts

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WHS

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction, Post Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of evidence relating to the complainant's sexual experience under s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) resulted in a miscarriage of justice
  2. 2 Whether the failure to permanently stay the trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether convictions were unreasonable due to the complainant's significant change in allegations

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error or miscarriage of justice in excluding evidence concerning the complainant's prior sexual experience or activity under s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) because the Crown case did not disclose or imply that the complainant lacked prior sexual experience or activity; Traill DCJ's refusal to permanently stay the proceedings likewise involved no error as adequate opportunities remained to test the complainant's reliability and raise reasonable alternative explanations. However, the conviction on counts 1 and 4 could not be sustained beyond reasonable doubt because of irreconcilable changes in the complainant's evidence over time; the verdicts on those counts...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted in part; appeal upheld on ground 5 only; convictions on counts 1 and 4 quashed; aggregate sentence set aside; matter remitted for re-sentence on counts 2 and 5.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal so far as necessary for the appellant to advance grounds that are not limited to questions of law alone.
  • Uphold the appeal on ground 5 only.