Legal Research
Cases
Jarrett v R

Jarrett v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 140 28 July 2014

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Admissibility of Evidence

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Jarrett v R [2014] NSWCCA 140
Hearing dates: 15 May 2014
Decision date: 28 July 2014
Before: Basten JA at [1];
R A Hulme J at [91];
Campbell J at [92]
Decision:
(1) With respect to the appeal against conviction, grant leave to appeal with respect to ground 3, but dismiss the appeal.
(2) Otherwise refuse leave to rely upon grounds 1, 2 and 4 pursuant to Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4.
(3) Refuse leave to appeal against sentence.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - directions to jury - admissions made of offences with unspecified victim when accused medicated - directions sought and given went no further than suggesting unreliability - whether direction that the accused may have been referring to someone other than the complainant required - prejudicial effect of proposed direction

CRIMINAL LAW - access to video of complainant's evidence in chief in jury room - general warning to jury about reliance on the video - whether further warning required when viewing video in jury room - procedure when jury seek access to video - video requested along with other evidence - Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 306X

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - whether trial judge failed to consider the mental health of the accused

EVIDENCE - delay in making complaint about sexual offence - mandatory warning that delay does not by itself undermine a complainant's credibility - whether a warning was required that the complaint was not made at the earliest reasonable opportunity - whether there was "sufficient evidence" to require a warning - Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 294
EVIDENCE - delay in prosecution - whether accused suffered a significant forensic disadvantage - whether "good reasons" not to give warning - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165B
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 45
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61J, 61M
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 294, 294AA, 306X
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165B
Cases Cited: Collier v R [2012] NSWCCA 213
Commissioner of Stamps (South Australia) v Telegraph Investment Co Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 44; 184 CLR 453
Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427
Gately v The Queen [2007] HCA 55; 232 CLR 208
Gavin v R [2006] NSWCCA 66
Hristovski v R [2010] NSWCCA 129
JJB v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 126; 161 A Crim R 187
Kilby v The Queen [1973] HCA 30; 129 CLR 460
Longman v The Queen [1989] HCA 60; 168 CLR 79
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Plaintiff S297-2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 24
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v LTP [2004] NSWCCA 109
R v NZ [2005] NSWCCA 278; 63 NSWLR 628
Shepherd v…

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 Jarrett v R

Details

AGLC: Jarrett v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 140
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 140
Decision Date: 28 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of sexual offences and appealed on various grounds. The appeal involved a consideration of whether the trial judge provided adequate directions to the jury regarding admissions made by the accused while medicated, the appropriateness of allowing the jury to view video evidence in the jury room, the trial judge's consideration of the accused's mental health during sentencing, and the adequacy of warnings provided to the jury about the complainant's delay in reporting the offences. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in the directions given to the jury about the reliability of the accused's admissions, whether further warnings were necessary when the jury viewed the video evidence, if the trial judge failed to consider the appellant's mental health during sentencing, and if sufficient evidence existed to require a warning about the complainant's delay in reporting.

The court found that the directions given to the jury regarding the accused's admissions did not suggest that he might have been referring to someone other than the complainant, and therefore did not require further direction. The court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing the jury to view the video evidence in the jury room, provided they were warned about the potential unreliability of the video. Regarding sentencing, the court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the appellant's mental health. Finally, the court held that the trial judge was not required to give a warning about the complainant's delay in reporting the offences, as the delay did not undermine her credibility and there were no significant forensic disadvantages to the accused.

The appeal was dismissed. The trial judge's directions to the jury were found to be adequate, and there was no prejudicial effect from allowing the jury to view the video evidence in the jury room. The trial judge's consideration of the appellant's mental health during sentencing was deemed sufficient. Finally, the court found that no warning was required regarding the complainant's delay in reporting the offences.

Orders