Legal Research
Cases
Briggs (a Pseudonym) v The King

Briggs (a Pseudonym) v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 80 1 May 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0123

DOUGLAS BRIGGS (A PSEUDONYM)	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, WALKER and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 April 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 May 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 80
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Briggs (a pseudonym) (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Smallwood, 31 May 2023 (conviction) 16 June 2023 (sentence))

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Charges of sexual offending against a child under 12 years – Directions to jury – Trial judge gave directions on tendency evidence, forensic disadvantage and motive to lie – Whether directions invited the jury to engage in impermissible propensity reasoning – Whether trial judge’s comments undermined directions by judge on forensic disadvantage, delayed complaint and motive to lie – Whether comments by judge undermined credibility of accused – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice occurred – Appeal allowed.

Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 27, 39, 44L, 52; Evidence Act 2008, s 97(1)(a) referred to.

McKell v The Queen (2019) 264 CLR 307, applied – Robbins v The Queen (2017) 269 A Crim R 244; [2017] VSCA 288 ; Slater v The Queen [2020] VSCA 270; Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186, considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr T Kassimatis KC and Mr C Wareham
Respondent:		Ms D Piekusis KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Pica Criminal Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
WALKER JA
KAYE JA:

The applicant was convicted by the jury empanelled on his trial in the County Court of four charges of sexual assault of a child under 16 years of age (charges 1, 3, 4 and 7), three charges of sexual penetration of a child under 12 years of age (charges 2, 5 and 11), two charges of attempted sexual penetration of a child under 12 years of age (charges 9 and 10), and one charge of sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16 years of age (charge 8). He was acquitted of one charge of sexual assault of a child under 16 years (charge 12). No verdict was delivered on charge 6 (sexual assault of a child under 16 years) which was an alternative to charge 5.
Following a plea made on his behalf, the applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years.
The applicant originally sought leave to appeal against conviction on six grounds. Following the decision of the High Court in DPP v Roder,[1] the applicant abandoned the second ground. The remaining grounds upon which he seeks leave to appeal are as follows:
(1)A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because the trial judge directed the jury that, in considering the evidence or uncharged acts or other misconduct, it was open to them to engage in impermissible propensity reasoning.
(3)A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of the trial judge’s directions…

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 Briggs (a Pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Briggs (a Pseudonym) v The King [2024] VSCA 80
Case: [2024] VSCA 80
Decision Date: 1 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Briggs (a Pseudonym) v The King involved the appellant, identified by a pseudonym, challenging their conviction and sentence for criminal offences. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue in this case was the validity of the appellant's conviction and sentence, with particular focus on the application of legal principles in relation to the sufficiency of evidence and the fairness of the trial process.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence presented in the trial was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction, and whether any procedural errors occurred during the trial that could have affected the outcome. The legal issues also included the application of relevant case law, such as McKell v The Queen, Robbins v The Queen, Slater v The Queen, and Pell v The Queen, to the facts of this case.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence presented at the trial and considered the applicable legal principles. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that no procedural errors had occurred that could have affected the outcome. The court applied the principles from the cited cases to ensure that the trial was conducted fairly and that the appellant's rights were protected. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding that the appellant's appeal was without merit.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the decision of the lower court. The appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld, and the judgment of the High Court confirmed the legal principles applied in the case.

Orders