TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL from the SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:CA 14 of 2024 (21939935)
DELIVERED: 17 July 2025
HEARING DATE: 7 April 2025
JUDGMENT OF: Southwood & Brownhill JJ & Riley AJ
CATCHWORDS:
CRIME – Appeals – Application for leave to appeal against conviction – Wrong decision on a question of law or a miscarriage of justice.
Whether trial Judge’s summing up regarding the use to be made of evidence about complainant’s motive to lie was contrary to law – Summing up was not contrary to law – Leave to appeal refused.
Whether trial Judge’s summing up regarding the use to be made of relationship evidence was inadequate – Summing up was not inadequate – Leave to appeal refused.
Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category: B Number of pages: 47
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN
Kerridge v The King [2025] NTCCA 6 No. CA 14 of 2025 (21939935)
BETWEEN:
MATHEW PHILLIP HARRISON KERRIDGE Applicant
AND:
THE KING
Respondent
CORAM: SOUTHWOOD & BROWNHILL JJ & RILEY AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 17 July 2025)
THE COURT:
The applicant was found guilty by a jury of 15 counts…
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 Kerridge v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Kerridge v The King [2025] NTCCA 6
Case
[2025] NTCCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Kerridge, sought leave to appeal against his conviction. The appeal concerned the trial judge's summing up to the jury regarding the use of certain evidence.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's summing up was contrary to law in relation to the use of evidence about the complainant's motive to lie, and whether the summing up was inadequate concerning the use of relationship evidence.
The court found that the summing up regarding the complainant's motive to lie was not contrary to law. In relation to the relationship evidence, the court noted that such evidence is admissible for various purposes, including assessing the plausibility and coherence of a complainant's evidence, providing essential background, and explaining acquiescence to sexual abuse. The trial judge had directed the jury that the relationship evidence was admitted for a limited purpose, to assist in determining whether the complainant consented and whether the accused knew she was not consenting or was reckless. The judge cautioned the jury not to use the evidence to infer propensity or bad character, as it was only circumstantial evidence that, taken with other circumstances, could be considered in deciding guilt. The court concluded that the summing up on this issue was not inadequate.
Leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
It follows that proposed Ground 1 would fail.Ground 2: Relationship evidence directionsThe trial Judge’s directions about relationship evidence At the trial, the Crown relied on evidence concerning the relationship between the applicant and the complainant and the conduct of the applicant towards the complainant in that relationship.[41] In particular, the Crown relied on this evidence to establish that the complainant felt that she had to acquiesce to whatever the accused wanted her to do, no matter how much she did not want to do it. Evidence of this nature, commonly referred to as ‘context’ or ‘relationship’ evidence, may be admissible for purposes other than tendency reasoning, including the following:[42](a)as affecting the plausibility of other evidence or to assess the credibility and coherence of the complainant’s evidence;(b)as essential background against which the evidence of the complainant and the accused necessarily falls to be evaluated, to show the continuing nature of the conduct and to explain the offences charged;(c)to overcome a false impression that the event was an isolated one, that the offence happened ‘out of the blue’, particularly where the acts are closely and inextricably mixed up with the history of the offence;[43](d)to ensure that the jury are not required to decide issues in a vacuum; and(e)as negativing issues raised such as accident or mistake. Such purposes also include to explain acquiescence to sexual abuse, which may otherwise be confused with consent on the part of the complainant and belief on the part of the accused that the complainant was consenting, if evidence of the full history of violence and coercion is not placed before the jury.[44] During the complainant’s evidence in chief, the trial Judge directed the jury about the use to which they could put the relationship evidence.[45] His Honour told the jury they must consider each count separately and be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown had proven each one of them. His Honour then told the jury that evidence about the relationship was admitted only for a very limited purpose and could only be used for that purpose and for no other purpose. The purpose of the evidence was to enable the jury to make findings about certain matters to assist them as to whether they were satisfied, for example, that the complainant did not consent to the sexual intercourse with the accused the subject of the charges; to assist the jury as to whether they accepted the truthfulness and accuracy of the account which the complainant had given in relation to the alleged offences, whether or not she consented to any of the charged acts and whether or not the accused knew she was not consenting or was reckless about that. His Honour told the jury they should ask themselves what kind of relationship it was, an ordinary one or one of enmity and distrust or something else. His Honour said that, if the relationship evidence satisfies them that the relationship was one of enmity and distrust, that would be evidence from which they might infer that the complainant was not consenting and the accused must have known that. His Honour went on:[46]Whichever view you take of the relationship evidence, that evidence, by itself, doesn’t prove anything. It is a circumstance which, taken with the other circumstances in the case, you are entitled to consider in deciding whether or not the Crown has proven the elements of the offence. ...... So, you cannot leap to the conclusion that the existence of harm in the relationship – or the existence of a bad relationship, proves the accused’s guilt. It is only a piece of circumstantial evidence, although you may consider it an important piece of evidence.Now, you may think that this evidence shows other things; for example, that the accused is a person with a propensity to violence against the victim, or that he is a person of bad character or things of that kind. You are not to use the relationship evidence for these purposes because, to do so would be very prejudicial and that evidence is not probative of any fact in issue, and I direct that you must not take it into account in that manner.