Legal Research
Cases
Gray v The Queen

Gray v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 240 24 September 2020

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gray v R [2020] NSWCCA 240
Hearing dates: 23 July 2020
Date of orders: 24 September 2020
Decision date: 24 September 2020
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Lonergan J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal on ground 1 is refused.
(2) Leave to appeal on ground 2 is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.
(3) Pursuant to s 28A(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), an order is made that the applicant’s sentence should recommence on 24 September 2020.
(4) For the purpose of s 18(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act, the Court notes that the period between 2 April 2020 and 23 September 2020 does not count as part of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on 9 October 2019.
(5) As a result of the alterations referred to in [149] to [151], the non-parole period will now expire on 18 April 2021 and the sentence will expire on 18 October 2022.
(6) The earliest date on which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole is 18 April 2021.
(7) The making of these orders confirms the resumption of the sentence imposed in the District Court on 9 October 2019 including the order under s 19 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act that the sentence be served in a detention centre and not a correctional centre for the reasons provided by Haesler SC DCJ as set out at [151].

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW — appeal against conviction — whether miscarriage of justice occasioned by admission of evidence of the complainant — whether complainant competent to give evidence
CRIMINAL LAW — appeal against conviction — whether evidence capable of supporting guilty verdict

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AZ v R [2018] NSWCCA 294
Hamilton (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 80
Pell v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 394; [2020] HCA 12
R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337
R v Gray [2019] NSWDC 550

Texts Cited:
---

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: John Gray (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Wasley (Applicant)
B Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid Commission (NSW) (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/359952
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

26 July 2019

Before:

Haesler SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/359952

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Lonergan J and the orders which she proposes.
JOHNSON J: I agree with Lonergan J.
LONERGAN J: On 26 July 2019, following a trial before Haesler SC DCJ and a jury of eleven, the applicant, known in these proceedings as John Gray, was found guilty of an offence contrary to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), in that he engaged in…

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 Gray v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Gray v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 240
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 240
Decision Date: 24 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gray v The Queen, the appellant, Gray, sought to appeal his conviction for various criminal charges. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence provided by the complainant, which the appellant argued should not have been admitted due to the complainant's competency to give evidence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which reviewed the lower court's decision and determined the legal issues presented.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were whether the admission of the complainant's evidence had resulted in a miscarriage of justice and whether the evidence was capable of supporting the guilty verdict. The court examined the lower court's findings on the complainant's competency and assessed whether the evidence provided was reliable and admissible under the law. The court also evaluated whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The High Court determined that the lower court had not erred in admitting the complainant's evidence, as it found that the complainant was competent to give evidence. The court further held that the evidence was reliable and capable of supporting the guilty verdict. The court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the conviction remained intact.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant. The court did not find any grounds for overturning the lower court's decision, and the appellant's conviction for the criminal charges remained in place.

Orders