Legal Research
Cases
Hayne v The King

Hayne v The King

Case [2024] NSWCCA 97 12 June 2024

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Hayne v R [2024] NSWCCA 97
Hearing dates: 3 April 2024
Date of orders: 12 June 2024
Decision date: 12 June 2024
Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Rothman J at [206];
Sweeney J at [247]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Dismiss Ground 1 of the appeal and uphold Grounds 2 and 3 of the appeal.
3. Quash the appellant’s two convictions.
4. Order a new trial.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against conviction — offences of sexual intercourse without consent — whether jury’s guilty verdicts unreasonable — where complainant alleged to have been “emotionally changeable” — where complainant’s version said not to account for period in which appellant at complainant’s house — where complainant’s accounts to others said to be inconsistent with charged offences — where complainant said to have curated evidence
CRIME — appeals — appeal against conviction — offences of sexual intercourse without consent — application made at trial to re-call complainant pursuant to Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 306J to give further evidence about her interactions with others after alleged assaults — whether trial judge erred in refusing to grant leave pursuant to s 306D — whether miscarriage of justice occasioned by trial judge giving a direction on “lies”

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 7, 8
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61H, 61HA, 61I, 578A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1), 6(1), 8(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 306B, 306C, 306D, 306I, 306J
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 97

Cases Cited:
Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432; [1991] HCA 4
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57; [2019] HCA 48
Elomar v R [2014] NSWCCA 303; (2014) 316 ALR 206
Finance Facilities Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 127 CLR 106; [1971] HCA 12
Hayne vR [2022] NSWCCA 11
Hofer v The Queen (2021) 274 CLR 351; [2021] HCA 36
Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
McPherson v Copeland (1961) SC (J) 74
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
MWJ v The Queen [2005] HCA 74; (2005) 80 ALJR 329
Pelechowski v The Registrar, Court of Appeal (NSW) (1999) 198 CLR 435; [1999] HCA 19
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Bauer (a pseudonym) (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3
Swain v Waverley Municipal…

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 Hayne v The King

Details

AGLC: Hayne v The King [2024] NSWCCA 97
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 97
Decision Date: 12 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction was brought by Hayne, who had been found guilty of multiple offences of sexual intercourse without consent. The appeal was heard in the High Court. The primary legal issue was whether the jury's verdicts of guilty were unreasonable, given the various criticisms made about the complainant's credibility and the evidence presented. The appeal also questioned whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the complainant to be re-called under section 306J of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) and whether this refusal led to a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable, as they had access to all the evidence and were entitled to assess the credibility of the witnesses, including the complainant. The criticisms of the complainant's credibility, such as her alleged emotional instability and inconsistencies in her accounts, were matters for the jury to consider. The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to re-call the complainant under section 306J, as there was no clear basis to believe that her additional evidence would have altered the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge's direction regarding the complainant's alleged lies did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, as it was a permissible comment on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The court's final orders were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, and the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court were affirmed.

Orders