KJR v R

Case [2007] NSWCCA 165 29 June 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 173 A Crim R 226

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: KJR v REGINA [2007] NSWCCA 165
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 8 November 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 2; Rothman J at 13

DECISION: (1) Conviction appeal dismissed; (2) Leave to appeal against sentence granted; (3) Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – plea of not guilty – sexual offences – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – directions given by trial judge – tendency evidence - delay - SENTENCING - special circumstances - whether sentences manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Chahine v R [2006] NSWCCA 179
Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161
DPP v Boardman [1975] AC 421
Doggett v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 343
Hutchinson v RTA [2000] NSWCA 332
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
R v BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241
R v DRE [2006] NSWCCA 280
R v Ellis (2003) 144 A Crim R 1
R v Fletcher [2005] NSWCCA 338
R v Gardiner [2006] NSWCCA 190
R v Ngatikaura [2006] NSWCCA 161
R v Tripodina (1988) 35 A Crim R 183
R v TWP [2006] NSWCCA 141
R v Williams (1990) 50 A Crim R 213
Weiss v R (2005) 224 CLR 300
Wright v R [2006] NSWCCA 122

PARTIES: KJR (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1734

COUNSEL: A. Francis (Appellant)
P. Barrett (Crown)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (LAC)
S. Kavanagh (ODPP)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0314

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Karpin DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 19 October 2004

2006/1734

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
ROTHMAN J
29 JUNE 2007

KJR v REGINA

Judgment

NON-PUBLICATION ORDER MADE AND CONTINUED

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Simpson J.

2 SIMPSON J: I have read in draft the judgment of Rothman J. I agree that the appeal ought to be dismissed. I shall briefly state my own reasons.

3 The relevant directions have been set out in the judgment of Rothman J. I agree with his Honour that there are some passages in the summing up that are couched in language more commonly associated with s 98 (coincidence) evidence than s 97 (tendency) evidence. An example of this is to be found in the passage first extracted under the heading “Ground 1” where there is a reference to “a striking similarity between two or more events”, giving rise to a conclusion that the offences in question were committed by the same person. Identifying the appellant as the person who committed one or more offences by reference to his having committed another, or others, and parallels in the manner of these being carried out, simply was not…

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 KJR v R

Details

AGLC: KJR v R [2007] NSWCCA 165
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 165
Decision Date: 29 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of KJR v R, the appellant contested his conviction and sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate and that the evidence presented was unfairly prejudicial. Additionally, he claimed that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's tendency to commit sexual offences. The court also needed to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient, and the jury was adequately guided on the necessary considerations. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence of the appellant's tendency to commit sexual offences, as it was relevant to the issue of identity. Regarding the sentence, the court concluded that while the sentence was on the higher end of the scale, it was not manifestly excessive, given the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found no errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury, the admission of tendency evidence, or the sentencing.

Orders