Clifton Snyder (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen - [2022] VSCA 140

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0171

CLIFTON SNYDER (a pseudonym)[1]	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To avoid the possibility of identifying the alleged victim of a sexual offence, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant.

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, KYROU and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 July 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 July 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 140
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Snyder (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 1214 (Judge Doyle)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Judge alone trial – Eight charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16 – Complainant died after giving evidence at committal and before trial – Whether judge erred in admitting and relying upon complaint evidence, in the application of expert evidence, in approach to complainant’s prior inconsistent statements or in rejecting unchallenged evidence of complainant’s mother – Whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to evidence – Leave to appeal refused – Evidence Act 2008, s 65; Criminal Procedure Act 2009, ss 420D, 420E, 276(1)(a) – Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; Higgins v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 149 considered.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Eight charges of sexual penetration of a child under 16 – Offending in 1993 and 1994 – Total effective sentence of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment – Whether judge erred in manner in which he took into account conduct which did not result in conviction or in finding connection between offending and complainant’s psychiatric difficulties – Whether judge erred in concluding that totality was to be accorded less weight because applicant not remorseful and in reducing weight given to delay due to applicant contesting ‘every aspect of the case’ – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Ms R Shann QC with Ms B East
Respondent:		Mr J C J McWilliams and Ms K Crennan
Solicitors
Applicant:	SLKQ Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
KYROU JA
T FORREST JA:

Introduction

An indictment filed in the County Court initially charged the applicant with 36 charges – six charges[2] of committing an indecent act with a child under 16[3] and 30 charges[4] of taking part in an act of sexual penetration with a child under 16[5] – in the period between late 1993 and late 1994.
[2]Charges 2, 7, 26, 29, 33 and 34.
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 47(1).
[4]Charges 1, 3, 4 to 25, 27 to 28, 30 to 32, 35 and 36.
[5]Crimes Act 1958, s 45.
‘EW’, the complainant, was born in December 1978, and was aged 14 to 15 years at the time of the alleged offending. The applicant, born in September 1971, was aged between 21 and 24 years when he allegedly committed the offences against her.
EW made two statements to police, on 24…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Clifton Snyder (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] VSCA 140
Decision Date: 20 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Clifton Snyder, also known as a pseudonym, versus The Queen involved an appeal against both the conviction and the sentence of Snyder, who was convicted of eight counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16. Snyder was tried by a judge alone, and the complainant had passed away before the trial, having already given evidence at the committal hearing. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the judge had erred in admitting and relying on the complainant’s evidence, the application of expert evidence, the handling of the complainant’s prior inconsistent statements, and the rejection of unchallenged evidence from the complainant’s mother. Additionally, the Court assessed whether the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

The primary legal issues revolved around the admissibility and reliability of the deceased complainant’s evidence, the application of expert testimony, and the handling of prior inconsistent statements. The Court also examined whether the judge appropriately considered factors such as the absence of remorse and the delay in the proceedings due to Snyder contesting every aspect of the case. Furthermore, the Court assessed the reasonableness of the sentence in light of the delay and the impact on Snyder’s psychiatric condition.

The High Court found no merit in the arguments presented by Snyder. The Court concluded that the judge had not erred in admitting and relying upon the complaint evidence, nor in the application of expert evidence. The Court also found that the judge appropriately considered the complainant’s prior inconsistent statements and correctly rejected the unchallenged evidence of the complainant’s mother. The Court determined that the verdicts were neither unreasonable nor unsupported by the evidence. The appeal against the sentence was similarly unsuccessful, with the Court finding that the judge had appropriately considered the factors in the sentencing process, including the delay and the lack of remorse, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal on both the conviction and the sentence. The decision underscores the rigorous scrutiny applied to both the admissibility of evidence and the sentencing process in criminal cases, particularly when the complainant is deceased and the accused contests the allegations vigorously.

Orders