R v WSP [2005] NSWCCA 427

R v WSP [2005] NSWCCA 427

In the first trial, no error was found in failing to give a Longman warning as no significant prejudice was shown from the delay and no request for such a warning was made at trial. In the second trial, the majority (Sully J and Hulme J) held that the Longman warning given was insufficient, lacking the required strength and content, and the proviso should not be applied because the jury's divergent verdicts indicated issues with reliability and credibility of the complainant which made the absence of proper warning material to the outcome.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: WSP
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal in relation to the second trial allowed; convictions set aside; new trial ordered. Extension of time and appeal in relation to the first trial refused.
Legal Topics
Longman Warning, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions, Sexual Offences, Delay in Complaint, Application of the Proviso
Criminal Law Longman Warning Admissibility of Evidence Jury Directions Sexual Offences Delay in Complaint Application of the Proviso

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

WSP

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to give, or inadequately gave, a Longman warning regarding delay in complaint in sexual assault charges
  2. 2 Whether the jury directions regarding the use of evidence of prior sexual misconduct and admissions were sufficient
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the principle of totality

Ratio Decidendi

In the first trial, no error was found in failing to give a Longman warning as no significant prejudice was shown from the delay and no request for such a warning was made at trial. In the second trial, the majority (Sully J and Hulme J) held that the Longman warning given was insufficient, lacking the required strength and content, and the proviso should not be applied because the jury's divergent verdicts indicated issues with reliability and credibility of the complainant which made the absence of proper warning material to the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal in relation to the second trial allowed; convictions set aside; new trial ordered. Extension of time and appeal in relation to the first trial refused.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal against convictions on 13 August 2003 granted.
  • Leave to argue the Fourth Ground of Appeal (Longman warning) in the second trial granted.