Legal Research
Cases
Adams v R

Adams v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 303 20 December 2018

Improper Jury Instructions

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Adams v R [2018] NSWCCA 303
Hearing dates: 2 March 2018
Date of orders: 20 December 2018
Decision date: 20 December 2018
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Campbell J at [7]
N Adams J at [191]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal against conviction granted.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) Conviction and sentence on Count 1 quashed.
(4) Enter verdict of acquittal on Count 1.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – conviction and sentence appeal – three counts of aggravated indecent assault – one count of aggravated sexual assault – circumstance of aggravation – whether the verdicts of guilty are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – verdicts are irrationally inconsistent – misuse or mistake in relation to the DNA evidence – the jury improperly rejected the evidence of the Crown expert witness in relation to the lack of significance of the DNA evidence – whether the conduct of the trial was attended with a number of significant errors and whether these ‘errors’ had the singular and cumulative effect of depriving the appellant of a fair trial according to law
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – whether the trial judge erred in excluding the “False Complaints” evidence – the appellant contends he received a harsher sentence than that warranted in law
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61J, 61M, 66C
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F
Criminal Appeal Rules 1912 (NSW), r 4
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), Pt 5 s 293
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 13, 56, 102, s 106, 108C, 137, 192A
Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Burton v R (2013) 237 A Crim R 238; [2013] NSWCCA 335
Clark v R (2008) 185 A Crim R 1; [2008] NSWCCA 122
Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4
Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] HCA 28; (2014) 88 ALJR 779
GEH v R (2012) 228 A Crim R 32; [2012] NSWCCA 150
GP v R [2016] NSWCCA 150
Greenhalgh v R [2017] NSWCCA 94
HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414; [1999] HCA 2
JWM v R [2014] NSWCCA 248
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
MG v R [2017] NSWCCA 14
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 484; [1994] HCA 63
M v R (1993) 67 A Crim R 549
Obeid v R [2017] NSWCCA 221
Palmer v R (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2
Picken v R; R v Picken [2007] NSWCCA 319
Regina v Skaf, Ghanem & Hajeid [2004] NSWCCA 74
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Dann [2000] NSWCCA 185
R v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166
R v GK (2001) 53 NSWLR 317; [2001] NSWCCA 413
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v Morgan (1993) 30 NSWLR 543
R v RTB

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 Adams v R

Details

AGLC: Adams v R [2018] NSWCCA 303
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 303
Decision Date: 20 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Adams v R, the appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence on three counts of aggravated indecent assault and one count of aggravated sexual assault. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant argued that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable and could not be supported given the evidence. The appellant also contended that the trial was attended by significant errors that deprived him of a fair trial. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence related to “False Complaints” and that he received a harsher sentence than warranted by law.

The court was required to determine whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable and irrationally inconsistent, particularly in light of the DNA evidence. It was also necessary to assess whether there was a misuse or mistake in relation to the DNA evidence and if the jury improperly rejected the evidence of the Crown expert witness concerning the lack of significance of the DNA evidence. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the conduct of the trial was flawed in a way that deprived the appellant of a fair trial. Finally, the court had to examine whether the trial judge's decision to exclude “False Complaints” evidence was correct and whether the appellant's sentence was disproportionate.

The court found that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable and irrationally inconsistent, particularly due to the misuse or mistake in relation to the DNA evidence. The jury had improperly rejected the evidence of the Crown expert witness, which was critical to the case. The court also found that the conduct of the trial was indeed attended by significant errors, which cumulatively deprived the appellant of a fair trial. Concerning the exclusion of “False Complaints” evidence, the court found that the trial judge did not err in excluding it, as it did not meet the criteria for admissibility. However, the court concluded that the appellant’s sentence was harsher than warranted by law.

The court allowed the appeal against the conviction and sentence. The convictions were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.

Orders