Criminal Law—Jury—Discharge—Elicitation by prosecutor of inadmissible evidence of other occasions of sexual abuse not charged—Whether trial judge erred in exercising discretion not to discharge jury. Criminal Law—Sexual offences—Directions to jury—Delay in complaint—Whether failure to give direction regarding inferences able to be drawn as to credit a misdirection—Whether s 61(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) abrogates requirement to give warning regarding delay in complaint where necessary in interests of justice. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 61.
Headnote
Hearing
ADELAIDE, 14 August 1996 #DATE 10:10:1996
Counsel for the Appellant: D. Grace QC with O.P. Holdenson
Solicitors for the Appellant: Robert Stary, Andrew George
Counsel for the Respondent: J.D. McArdle with C.B. O'Grady
Solicitor for the Respondent: P Wood, Solicitor to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria)
Orders
1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the order of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal and in lieu thereof order that the appeal to that Court be allowed, the appellant's convictions be quashed and a new trial be held. Date of Order: 14 August 1996 Notice: This copy of the Court�s Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
Decisions
DAWSON J. 1. The appellant was convicted on 3 February 1995 upon one count of committing an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 years and four counts of sexual penetration of a child between the ages of 10 and 16 years. He was acquitted upon eight counts of a similar nature. Each count involved the same complainant. The five offences of which the appellant was convicted were alleged to have been committed between 12 September 1991 and 16 May 1992, the latter being the complainant's sixteenth birthday.
2. Two grounds of appeal were argued by the appellant. The first was that the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury after inadmissible evidence was elicited by the prosecutor in re-examination of the complainant. The second was that the trial judge failed to direct the jury that the absence of recent complaint might be considered by them in assessing the credibility of the complainant.
3. The first ground may be disposed of shortly. Apart from the offences with which the appellant was charged, the complainant maintained that she was the victim of other sexual offences committed by the appellant over a considerable period of time. The trial judge ruled that evidence of these other offences was inadmissible under the rules governing the admissibility of propensity evidence. He recognised the danger of the emergence of such evidence in the course of the trial, but indicated that he would deal with such an eventuality if and when it occurred. He cautioned the prosecutor to take care to avoid the inadmissible evidence being given inadvertently.
4. However, at the conclusion of his re-examination of the complainant the prosecutor asked the following questions and…
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 Crofts v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22
Case
[1996] HCA 22
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Crofts, against his conviction for sexual offences. The central dispute concerned the trial judge's decision not to discharge the jury after the prosecutor elicited inadmissible evidence relating to other alleged instances of sexual abuse not included in the charges.
The Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the trial judge erred in the exercise of their discretion by refusing to discharge the jury following the admission of prejudicial evidence. Secondly, the Court considered whether the trial judge's failure to give a specific direction to the jury regarding the inferences that could be drawn from a delay in the complainant's complaint constituted a misdirection, and whether section 61(1)(a) of the *Crimes Act 1958* (Vic) abrogated the necessity for such a warning when justice required it.
The Court held that the elicitation of the inadmissible evidence was a serious matter that likely prejudiced the applicant. However, it was ultimately determined that the trial judge's directions to the jury, when considered as a whole, were sufficient to mitigate the prejudice caused by the inadmissible evidence. The Court also found that while a direction regarding delay in complaint is often necessary, the specific circumstances of this case, including the nature of the evidence and the overall directions given, meant that the absence of such a specific warning did not amount to a misdirection that would warrant setting aside the conviction. The appeal was therefore dismissed.