Grant v The King - [2024] NSWCCA 78

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Grant v R [2024] NSWCCA 78
Hearing dates: 24 April 2024
Date of orders: 24 May 2024
Decision date: 24 May 2024
Before: Davies J at [1];
N Adams J at [2];
McNaughton J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Ground 1 be upheld.
(2) The appeal be allowed.
(3) The appellant’s conviction for the offence contrary to s 66EA Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) be quashed.
(4) In lieu thereof, an order of acquittal is entered.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal pursuant to s 5(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – historical sexual acts – where female teacher maintained a sexual relationship with a child – where appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court – whether the conviction was a miscarriage of justice – whether appellant was convicted of a charge founded upon charges for which the appellant could not lawfully be convicted

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66EA, 81
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166

Cases Cited:
Grant v R [2024] NSWCCA 30
JAD v R [2012] NSWCCA 73
Lam v R [2024] NSWCCA 6
Livbuild Pty Ltd v Willoughby City Council [2017] NSWCCA 255
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41
R v Grant [2022] NSWDC 718
R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120

Texts Cited:
New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 6 June 2018

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gaye Grant (Appellant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Boland (Appellant)
G Newton SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Hugo Law Group (Appellant)
Solicitors for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/182084
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), publication of the name of the victim or of any matter that could identify him is prohibited
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2022] NSWDC 718

Date of Decision:

20 December 2022

Before:

Haesler SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/182084

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Ms Gaye Grant, the appellant, pleaded guilty to an offence of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child contrary to s 66EA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). On 20 December 2022, the appellant was sentenced for that offence to a term of 6 years’ and 9 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 4 months.

The appellant was employed as a teacher at a Catholic school between 1967 and 1998. It was in this role that she first met the victim. At that time, the victim was a Year 5 student. During the period between 1977 and 1979, the appellant would arrange to meet with the victim and engage in sexual activity. This continued until the victim commenced high school and realised the abnormality of his sexual relationship…

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 Grant v The King

Details

AGLC: Grant v The King [2024] NSWCCA 78
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 78
Decision Date: 24 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Grant, was convicted in the District Court for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, which occurred many years prior. The conviction arose from historical sexual acts between the appellant, who was a female teacher, and the child. Grant appealed against her conviction, contending that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice and that she was convicted of a charge founded upon charges for which she could not lawfully be convicted. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the conviction was a miscarriage of justice, as argued by the appellant. A secondary issue was whether the charge was founded upon charges for which the appellant could not lawfully be convicted. The court needed to consider the applicable criminal law, the principles of double jeopardy, and the nature of the offence to determine if the conviction was lawful.

The court held that the appellant's conviction was not a miscarriage of justice. It found that the District Court had correctly applied the law and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also held that the charge was founded upon charges for which the appellant could lawfully be convicted, and that the principles of double jeopardy did not apply. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court. The appellant's conviction for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child remained in place.

Orders