Meagher JA at [1]; Wilson J at [187]; Sweeney J at [190]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to the applicant, LF, to appeal against his convictions on grounds 1, 2 and 3.
(2) Dismiss his appeal against conviction on each of grounds 1, 2 and 3.
Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against conviction —applicant convicted of three sexual offences against two child complainants — where application under Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 306Y for order that one complainant’s evidence not be given by JIRT interview — whether judge erred in not being satisfied that not in “interests of justice” for that evidence to be given — where trial judge gave a direction and warning that JIRT interview evidence may be unreliable due to manner in which interview conducted — whether that direction and warning was sufficient having regard to Evidence Act, ss 165, 165A — whether guilty verdicts on three offences unreasonable
[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 LF v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
LF v The King [2023] NSWCCA 232
Case
[2023] NSWCCA 232
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved the applicant, LF, who was convicted of three sexual offences against two child complainants. LF appealed against his conviction, arguing that the judge should not have allowed the evidence of one of the complainants to be given through a Juvenile Interview Recording Team (JIRT) interview. LF applied under section 306Y of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) for an order that the evidence not be given by JIRT interview. The appeal centred on whether the judge erred in not being satisfied that it was in the interests of justice for the evidence to be given in that manner. Additionally, the trial judge had given a direction and warning to the jury that the JIRT interview evidence might be unreliable due to the way the interview was conducted. The appeal also argued whether this direction and warning were sufficient in light of sections 165 and 165A of the Evidence Act.
The court considered the arguments and examined the evidence and the trial judge's directions. The court found that the trial judge had given a comprehensive direction and warning to the jury about the potential unreliability of the JIRT interview evidence. The court concluded that the trial judge's direction and warning were sufficient to address the concerns about the reliability of the evidence. The court also considered the evidence as a whole and found that the guilty verdicts on the three offences were not unreasonable. The court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing the JIRT interview evidence and dismissed the appeal.
LF's appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the original convictions stood. The court found that the trial judge had properly directed the jury regarding the potential unreliability of the JIRT interview evidence and that the verdicts were not unreasonable. The court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing the JIRT interview evidence to be given. The original convictions were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.