Bathurst CJ at [1]; Price J at [432]; Campbell J at [472]
Decision:
1 Appeal against conviction dismissed.
2 Crown appeal against sentence allowed.
3 Quash the sentences imposed by Woods DCJ for counts 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29 being offences contrary to s 66C(2) Crimes Act.
4 In lieu thereof, for each count sentence the appellant to imprisonment for 5 years consisting of a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months commencing on 4 July 2016 and expiring on 3 January 2019 with a balance of term of 2 years 6 months commencing on 4 January 2019 and expiring on 3 July 2021.
5 Quash the sentences imposed by Woods DCJ for counts 35, 36, 37 and 38 being offences contrary to s 61M(1) Crimes Act.
6 In lieu thereof, for each count sentence the appellant to imprisonment for 6 years consisting of a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 4 July 2012 and expiring on 3 July 2016 with a balance of term of 2 years commencing on 4 July 2016 and expiring on 3 July 2018.
7 Confirm the sentences imposed by Woods DCJ for counts 1-16 inclusive, 19, 20, 24, 25-27 inclusive and 30-34 inclusive.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - sexual offences alleged by multiple complainants - tendency evidence - circular or coincidence reasoning - whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to tendency. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - evidence of complaint - whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of complaint or misdirected the jury regarding the use to be made of complaint evidence. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - sexual experience of complainant - s 293 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - whether error in refusing leave to cross-examine complainant about sexual experience. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - s 38 Evidence Act 1995 - whether the trial judge erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine and obtain supplementary evidence - whether error in directions. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether the trial judge erred in declining re-examination to re-establish credibility. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether impermissible cross-examination of the appellant's character witnesses. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether summing up was fair and balanced - whether the trial judge failed to adequately put the defence case to the jury. CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal against sentence - whether the trial judge failed to appropriately accumulate the sentences leading to manifest inadequacy.
[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 Doyle v R; R v Doyle
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4
Case
[2014] NSWCCA 4
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved in this case were the appellant, Doyle, and the Crown, represented by R. The dispute pertained to the appellant's convictions for multiple sexual offences, which he appealed on several grounds. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant contested the admissibility and handling of certain evidence, including tendency evidence and complaints from multiple complainants, as well as the judge's directions to the jury. The Crown appealed the sentence handed down by the trial judge, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate.
The legal issues central to the appeal included whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the use of tendency evidence and the admissibility of multiple complainant evidence. The appellant also argued that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his sexual experience, refusing to allow cross-examination on this matter, and misdirected the jury on its use. Furthermore, the appellant claimed that the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to obtain supplementary evidence and in declining re-examination to re-establish credibility. The Crown's appeal focused on the sentence, arguing that it was not adequately accumulated and was therefore manifestly inadequate.
In its reasoning, the court addressed each of the appellant's arguments, finding that while there were procedural errors, they did not lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the trial judge's directions to the jury, while not perfect, did not misdirect them in a way that would impact the safety of the convictions. The court also found that the trial judge's refusal to allow cross-examination on the appellant's sexual experience did not prejudice the defence to a significant degree. Regarding the Crown's appeal, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court ultimately upheld the convictions but remitted the case to the Court of Appeal to consider the sentence afresh. The Court of Appeal was instructed to consider whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the totality of the offending and the appellant's culpability. The court's decision emphasised the importance of procedural correctness in criminal trials but also underscored the need for a balanced and fair summing up to the jury.