Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1]; N Adams J at [15]; Lonergan J at [204].
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – historical child sexual offences – application for permanent stay refused – where indictment spanned five years – lack of particularity, delay, forensic disadvantage – standard of appellate review where stay refused and trial proceeds to conviction – House error and miscarriage under s 6(1) of Criminal Appeal Act – neither shown by applicant in this case
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – complainant’s testimony said to lack adequate particularity – complaint evidence – pretext calls – verdicts not unreasonable – appeal dismissed
[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 Macri v The the Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Macri v The the Queen [2022] NSWCCA 177
Case
[2022] NSWCCA 177
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Macri sought to appeal against his conviction for historical child sexual offences, arguing that the application for a permanent stay of proceedings should not have been refused. The appeal was based on several grounds, including the indictment spanning five years, the lack of particularity, delay, and the forensic disadvantage. The court examined whether the trial judge had erred in refusing the application for a permanent stay of proceedings and whether the refusal led to a miscarriage of justice under section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act. The court also reviewed whether the verdicts were unreasonable given the particularity of the complainant’s testimony.
The court found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing the application for a permanent stay of proceedings. The reasons provided by the trial judge were adequate, and there was no basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Furthermore, the court held that the verdicts were not unreasonable, as the complainant's testimony, though not detailed, was sufficiently particular to support the jury's findings. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial process was conducted correctly and that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the convictions.