Legal Research
Cases
AB v Regina

AB v Regina

Case [2015] NSWCCA 315 15 December 2015

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Limitation Periods

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: AB v Regina [2015] NSWCCA 315
Hearing dates: 2 October 2015
Date of orders: 15 December 2015
Decision date: 15 December 2015
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Hoeben CJ at CL at [123]; Hulme AJ at [124]
Decision:
Grant leave to the appellant to appeal on Ground 1 of the notice of appeal.
Refuse leave to appeal on Ground 3.
Conviction in respect of Count 6 of the indictment be quashed and a verdict of acquittal be entered on that count.
Appeal against conviction otherwise dismissed.
Direct the appellant to make submissions on the appropriate sentence to be imposed within 14 days of 1 February 2016.
Direct the Crown to make submissions in reply within the following 14 days.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction for sexual and drug offences – evidence – whether verdict unreasonable or unsupportable on evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction for sexual and drug offences – whether charge brought outside of statutory time limit
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction for sexual and drug offences – whether misdirection in summing up to jury
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Gilbert v The Queen [2000] HCA 15; 201 CLR 414
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; 230 CLR 559
M v R [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
MacKenzie v The Queen [1996] HCA 35; 190 CLR 348
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
Osland v The Queen [1998] HCA 75; 197 CLR 316
Poniris v R [2014] NSWCCA 100
R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290; 52 NSWLR 82
R v TK [2009] NSWCCA 151; 74 NSWLR 299
SKA v R [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: AB (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Stratton SC / C Wasley (Appellant)
G O’Rourke (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Brenda Duchen (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/9555
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

District Court of NSW

Date of Decision:

02 May 2015

Before:

Huggett DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/0009555

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: The appellant, who has been described in the submissions and in the Court below under the pseudonym AB (the appellant), was charged on indictment with six counts of drug and sexual offences against a person, GM (the complainant). The charges were as follows (substituting the name of the person against whom the offences were alleged to have been committed, as set out in the indictment, with ‘the complainant’):

“Count one: Between 21 May 1984 and 1 September 1984 at Cromer in the State of New South Wales did supply a drug of addiction other than prepared opium or Indian hemp, namely amphetamine, to [the complainant] contrary to s 21 (2A) Poisons Act 1966;
Count two: Between 1…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AB v Regina

Details

AGLC: AB v Regina [2015] NSWCCA 315
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 315
Decision Date: 15 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AB was convicted of multiple sexual and drug-related offences, including drug trafficking, possession of child pornography, and indecent assault. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupportable on the evidence, that the charge was brought outside of the statutory time limit, and that there was a misdirection in the summing up to the jury. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues in the appeal related to the sufficiency and admissibility of evidence, the timeliness of the charge, and the propriety of the summing up to the jury. The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that the charge was brought outside of the six-year limit under the Crimes (Prescription) Act 1995, and that the trial judge misdirected the jury by not sufficiently explaining the requirements of the law. The Crown argued that the evidence was sufficient, the charge was timely, and the summing up was proper.

The High Court examined the evidence presented in the trial and found that it was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The Court also held that the charge was brought within the statutory time limit, as the continuous supply of drugs was an ongoing offence. Regarding the summing up, the Court found no misdirection that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The Court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, as there were no grounds for overturning the conviction.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant be upheld. The Court found no errors in the trial process that would warrant a new trial or a reduction in sentence. The conviction for the multiple offences, including drug trafficking, possession of child pornography, and indecent assault, was confirmed by the Court.

Orders