Legal Research
Cases
KRM v The Queen

KRM v The Queen

Case [2000] NSWCCA 531 14 December 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Mayberry [2000] NSWCCA 531

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60484/99

HEARING DATE(S): 2 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 December 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Stephen Edward Mayberry

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Greg James J at 140; Kirby J at 141

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/00064

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kinchington DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: P G Berman SC
Mayberry: T A Game SC/A M Martin

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Mayberry: Mark Klees & Associates

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sexual assault - indecent assault - directions to the jury - multiple counts - evidence of separate complaints - unsafe and unsatisfactory

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61D, 61E, 78H, 78I
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 137, 165

CASES CITED:
R v Mitchell (unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 5 April 1995)
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
Crampton v The Queen [2000] HCA 60
R v M (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Johnston (1998) 45 NSWLR 362
R v Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439

DECISION: Appeal allowed; Convictions and sentences quashed; New trial ordered

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60484/99
BEAZLEY JA
GREG JAMES J
KIRBY J
Thursday, 14 December 2000

REGINA v MAYBERRY

FACTS

The appellant was convicted on eleven counts of sexual assault, indecent assault, attempted homosexual intercourse and homosexual intercourse against his stepsons under ss 61D, 61E, 78H and 78I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). the offences had allegedly been committed 12 - 14 years earlier. There was delay in complaint, no corroborative evidence and the credit of both complainants was seriously in issue.

HELD

Per Beazley JA (Greg James J and Kirby J agreeing):

(i) The trial judge failed to adequately warn the jury against using the offences of one complainant towards proof of the guilt of the appellant of offences involving the second complainant. The trial judge’s directions to consider each charge separately were insufficient to achieve this end: see R v Mitchell (unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 5 April 1995)

(ii) This was a case which required a warning to be given to the jury in accordance with R v Longman (1989) 168 CLR 79, and in particular that it was dangerous to convict on the complainants’ evidence unless, after carefully scrutinising it, they were satisfied of its truth and accuracy: see also Crampton v The Queen [2000] HCA 60.

(iii) This was not a case in which the appellate court should, on reading the transcript, interfere with the verdicts of the jury on the ground that they were unsafe and unsatisfactory. It was apparent that demeanour would have played a significant role in the jury’s assessment of the complainants’ credit: see R v M (1994) 181 CLR 487.

ORDERS

(i) Appeal allowed.

(ii) The convictions and sentences on all counts to be quashed.
(iii) Order that there be a new trial…

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 KRM v The Queen

Details

AGLC: KRM v The Queen [2000] NSWCCA 531
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 531
Decision Date: 14 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of KRM versus The Queen involved a defendant charged with multiple counts of sexual and indecent assault against various victims. The defendant was found guilty by a jury in the County Court of Victoria, but the verdict was quashed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeal was then called upon to review the matter. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in providing directions to the jury concerning the evidence of multiple complaints of sexual assault by different victims. The court had to determine if the trial judge's directions were sufficient to ensure a fair trial and whether the evidence presented was handled appropriately.

The Court of Criminal Appeal meticulously reviewed the trial judge's instructions to the jury, considering the complexities involved in handling multiple counts of sexual assault from different complainants. It was crucial for the court to assess whether the jury was adequately guided on how to approach the evidence of separate incidents, particularly in terms of assessing the credibility of each complainant and the relevance of the evidence to the charges. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions were insufficient, as they did not clearly distinguish between the evidence of separate incidents, which led to potential confusion and an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. The court found that the trial judge failed to provide adequate safeguards against the prejudicial effects of the multiple complaints, thereby compromising the fairness of the trial.

Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial, emphasising the importance of clear and precise jury directions when dealing with multiple counts of sexual assault. The court stressed that each complaint must be evaluated on its own merits, and the jury must be properly instructed to avoid any spillover effects that could unfairly prejudice the defendant. The appeal court's decision underscored the need for meticulous attention to procedural fairness in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving multiple victims and allegations of sexual assault.

Orders