Criminal law and procedure Sexual assault offences Applicant convicted after trial Many years after offences allegedly committed Content of warning given by trial judge of the danger of conviction Whether necessary to use the words "dangerous to convict" Nature of directions required about delay in making complaint Whether comment by trial judge that jury might consider why complainant would fabricate allegations involves error
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : CRISAFIO -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 104 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
MURRAY J PARKER J
HEARD : 6 MARCH 2003 DELIVERED : 20 MAY 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 138 of 2002 BETWEEN : PETER PASQUALE CRISAFIO
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sexual assault offences - Applicant convicted after trial - Many years after offences allegedly committed - Content of warning given by trial judge of the danger of conviction - Whether necessary to use the words "dangerous to convict" - Nature of directions required about delay in making complaint - Whether comment by trial judge that jury might consider why complainant would fabricate allegations involves error
[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 Crisafio v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Crisafio v The Queen [2003] WASCA 104
Case
[2003] WASCA 104
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant in this case appealed against his conviction for sexual assault offences, arguing that the trial judge had failed to adequately warn the jury of the dangers of convicting him based on the delayed reporting of the offences. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge was required to use the phrase "dangerous to convict" when warning the jury about the risks associated with convicting someone on the basis of delayed reporting. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's comments about why the complainant might fabricate allegations amounted to an error that warranted a new trial.
The High Court considered that the trial judge's warning to the jury was sufficient to alert them to the dangers of convicting on the basis of delayed reporting, and that it was not necessary to use the specific phrase "dangerous to convict". The court found that the judge's directions to the jury covered the essential considerations they needed to make, including the nature of the delay and the potential for fabrication. The court also determined that the trial judge's comments about why the complainant might fabricate allegations did not constitute an error that would undermine the fairness of the trial.
In light of these findings, the High Court refused the applicant's application for special leave to appeal. The court held that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the issues of delayed reporting and potential fabrication, and that there was no error in the trial proceedings that would warrant a new trial. Consequently, the applicant's convictions were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.