Langley (a pseudonym) v The King - [2024] VSCA 187

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0105

DAVID LANGLEY (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]To avoid the possibility of identifying the alleged victim of a sexual offence, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant.

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, McLEISH and BOYCE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 August 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 August 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 187
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Langley (a pseudonym) (County Court of Victoria, Judge Dyer, 1 June 2022)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Rape, sexual assault and indecent act with a child under 16 – Three complainants – Impermissible joinder of charges – Error in tendency directions – Extension of time granted – Appeal allowed – New trial ordered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Ms CA Boston SC with Mr G Chipkin
Respondent:		Ms DI Piekusis KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Victoria Legal Aid
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
MCLEISH JA
BOYCE JA:

Introduction

Following a trial in the County Court, the applicant was found guilty by a jury of 12 sexual offences against his former wife, ‘YD’, and his two step-daughters, ‘ND’ and ‘JD’.
Subsequently, on 1 June 2022, the trial judge sentenced the applicant to a lengthy period of imprisonment.[2]
[2]DPP v Langley (a pseudonym) [2022] VCC 799 (‘Reasons for Sentence’).
By a notice filed on 14 June 2024, the applicant seeks an extension of time within which to file a notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction. The extension of time was not opposed by the prosecution. We will grant it.
The applicant seeks to challenge his conviction on three grounds:
1A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred by reason of the impermissible joinder of Charges 1 – 12 with Charges 13 – 15.
2A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred by reason of the defence application to have Charges 13 – 15 included on the same indictment as Charges 1 – 12, in circumstances where such application had no rational justification.
3The learned trial judge erred in directing the jury as to tendency evidence in an incomplete and erroneous manner, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Very fairly, counsel for the respondent has conceded that ground 1 should succeed, accepting that there was impermissible joinder of charges on the indictment upon which the applicant was tried, so that ‘a substantial miscarriage of justice has been occasioned, and a re-trial must be ordered’.[3]
[3]Counsel for the respondent also fairly conceded that the direction complained of in ground 3 was erroneous and ‘had the capacity to affect the outcome of the trial’.
For the reasons that we will briefly set out, we consider that the concession of the respondent’s counsel was properly made and should be accepted.
We will thus grant leave to appeal against conviction on ground 1; allow the appeal; set aside the convictions; and order a new trial.

Ground 1:…

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 Langley (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Langley (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] VSCA 187
Case: [2024] VSCA 187
Decision Date: 29 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Langley, a pseudonym for the appellant, appealed against his conviction by the County Court on various charges related to sexual offences against three complainants. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the County Court erred in joining the charges and in providing tendency directions to the jury. The case hinged on whether these errors were so significant that they could have affected the outcome of the trial. The appellant argued that the joinder of charges and the tendency directions were improper and prejudiced his right to a fair trial. The central issue was whether these alleged errors warranted setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial.

The Court considered whether the joinder of charges was permissible and whether the tendency directions given to the jury were appropriate. The appellant's counsel contended that the joinder of the charges was improper because the offences were not part of the same transaction and were not similar in nature. Furthermore, the counsel argued that the tendency evidence provided to the jury was not relevant to the issues before the court and thus, could have misled the jury. The Court needed to decide if these procedural errors were indeed so significant as to potentially affect the fairness of the trial.

The Court found that the joinder of the charges was impermissible and that the tendency directions were erroneous. These errors were deemed to be so serious that they could have affected the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the verdict. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, the convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered. The Court's decision was based on the principle that a fair trial is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system and any procedural errors that could undermine this principle must be rectified.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In light of our conclusions on the first ground it is unnecessary to consider grounds 2 and 3.[12] [12]During the hearing in this Court, senior counsel for the applicant agreed that, if the Court was minded to act on the respondent’s concession concerning the first ground, it would be unnecessary to consider grounds 2 and 3.Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, leave to appeal against conviction will be granted; the appeal will be allowed; the convictions sustained by the appellant in the County Court will be set aside; and a new trial will be ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.