Legal Research
Cases
Darren Peter Wade v Regina

Darren Peter Wade v Regina

Case [2006] NSWCCA 295 20 September 2006

Criminal Liability

Admissibility of Evidence

Defence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
164 A Crim R 583

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Darren Peter Wade v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 295

HEARING DATE(S): 13 September 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 September 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hunt AJA at 1; Barr J at 4; Johnson J at 35

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sexual assault - effect of delay in complaint on appellant's ability to mount a defence - whether direction adequate

CASES CITED: R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Crampton v The Queen [2000] HCA 60; (2000) 206 CLR 161
R v BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241
R v GS [2003] NSWCCA 73
R v WSP [2005] NSWCCA 427
R v DGB (2002) 133 A Crim R 227
R v Murre [2001] NSWCCA 286
R v DRE [2006] NSWCCA 280
R v Sheehan [2006] NSWCCA 233
R v Kesisyan [2003] NSWCCA 259
Doggett v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 343
R v Robinson [2006] NSWCCA 192

PARTIES: Darren Peter Wade, Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1496

COUNSEL: S McNaughton
D Woodburne

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor
S Kavanagh

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/31/0474

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Coolahan DCJ

CCA 1496/2006

HUNT AJA
BARR J
JOHNSON J
20 SEPTEMBER 2006

DARREN PETER WADE v REGINA

Judgment

1 HUNT AJA: I agree with the order proposed by Barr J, and with the reasons he has given.

2 One particular complaint made by the appellant is that the trial judge failed in his directions concerning delay to use language which conveyed “the weight and authority of the court”. It is a complaint which appears to misunderstand what is meant by that phrase, a misunderstanding which has occurred in some other appeals. What it means is no more than that the various warnings which either the legislature or the appellate courts have required trial judges to give in relation to various issues to be determined by the jury must be seen by the jury to be given on the judge’s own behalf, and not merely by way of reference to what counsel may have submitted to the jury. It does not require any particular form of words to demonstrate that the direction is being given by the judge on his or her authority.

3 It is clear that the judge added the weight of his judicial authority to the directions in issue in this appeal, and that the jury would so have understood them.

4 BARR J: The appellant, Darren Peter Wade, appeals against his conviction following a trial by jury in the District Court of the offence of having had sexual intercourse with the complainant, whom I shall call T, without her consent in circumstances of aggravation, namely that T was under the age of sixteen years. The offence was committed on 25 October 2000. T was twelve years old at the time and her brother, whom I shall call J, was thirteen years old. They lived with…

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 Darren Peter Wade v Regina

Details

AGLC: Darren Peter Wade v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 295
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 295
Decision Date: 20 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted by a jury of sexually assaulting a child. The complainant, who was the victim, did not report the alleged assault to police for several years. The trial judge directed the jury that the delay in reporting the assault was not a factor that should influence their deliberations. The appellant appealed against the conviction on the basis that the trial judge's direction was inadequate. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which found in favour of the Crown.

The central issue before the Court was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the effect of the delay in reporting the assault was adequate. The Court noted that while the delay in reporting the complaint was a relevant factor in assessing the reliability of the evidence, it was not a factor that should be considered in determining the credibility of the witness. The Court further held that the trial judge's direction was adequate as it correctly informed the jury that the delay in reporting the assault was not a factor that should influence their deliberations.

The Court held that the trial judge's direction was adequate in informing the jury that the delay in reporting the assault was not a factor that should influence their deliberations. The Court noted that the direction correctly emphasised that the jury was not to consider the delay in reporting as a factor in determining the reliability of the evidence or the credibility of the witness. The Court further held that the trial judge's direction was consistent with the principles set out in previous cases, which held that the delay in reporting an assault was a factor that should be considered in assessing the reliability of the evidence, but not in determining the credibility of the witness.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellant's conviction. The Court held that the trial judge's direction was adequate and that the delay in reporting the assault was not a factor that should influence the jury's deliberations. The Court further held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction and that the appeal was without merit.

Orders