Legal Research
Cases
MJ v The Queen

MJ v The Queen

Case [2013] NSWCCA 250 8 November 2013

Validity of Indictment

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: MJ v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCCA 250

Hearing Date(s): 12 August 2013

Decision Date: 08 November 2013

Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Adams J at [99]
Latham J at [100]

Decision:
(1) Appeal against conviction dismissed.

(2) Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sexual offences - validity of indictment - statutory provisions changed during period covered by indictment - not known when during the period the offences were committed - whether appellant charged with offences known to law - whether indictment bad for duplicity

CRIMINAL LAW - sexual offences - judge alone trial - context evidence - whether complainant's errors and inconsistencies in versions of events should have led to rejection of her evidence

CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - sexual offences - application of Di Simoni 147 CLR 383 principle

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Amendment) Act 1989
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Appeal Rules
Criminal Code (Qld)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995
Justices Act 1902
Police Regulations Act 1899
Supreme Court Rules

Cases Cited: AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 160
Arnaout v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 278; 191 A Crim R 149
Baini v The Queen [2012] HCA 59; 246 CLR 469
Douglass v R [2012] HCA 34; 86 ALJR 1086
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
John L Pty Ltd v Attorney General (NSW) [1987] HCA 42; 163 CLR 508
Kailis v R [1999] WASCA 29; 21 WAR 100
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; 243 CLR 361
Lodhi v R [2006] NSWCCA 121; 199 FLR 303
MWJ v R [2005] HCA 74; 80 ALJR 329
McMahon v R [2011] NSWCCA 147
Question of Law Reserved (No 2 of 1996) (1996) 88 A Crim R 417
R v D, WD [2013] SASCFC 32; 116 SASR 99
R v Di Simoni [1981] 147 CLR 383
R v Greenaway [2000] NSWCCA 368; 118 A Crim R 299
R v Loewenthal; ex parte Blacklock [1974] HCA 36; 131 CLR 338
R v MAJW [2007] NSWCCA 145; 171 A Crim R 407
R v Page (Court of Criminal Appeal, 25 November 1991 unreported)
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Wehbee v Voulgarakis (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 22 October 1991, unreported; (1991) 9 Petty Sessions Review 4363)
Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; 224 CLR 300

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: MJ (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
H Dhanji SC (Appellant)
M Cinque (Respondent)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Chalmers Law (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/13589

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal: District Court

- Before: Solomon DCJ

- Date of Decision: 08 March 2013

- Citation: R v MJ

- Court File Number(s): 2012/13589

JUDGMENT

MACFARLAN JA: In 2012…

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 MJ v The Queen

Details

AGLC: MJ v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 250
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 250
Decision Date: 08 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MJ v The Queen was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant, MJ, was convicted of multiple sexual offences and appealed against his conviction and sentence. The central issue was the validity of the indictment, the admissibility of context evidence, and the sentencing principles applied. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the indictment was flawed due to changes in statutory provisions during the period the offences were alleged to have occurred, and whether the judge alone trial's admission of context evidence was appropriate. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was consistent with established principles.

The court first examined the validity of the indictment, considering whether the appellant was charged with offences that were known to the law at the time of the alleged offences. The court found that the indictment was not necessarily bad for duplicity, even though the statutory provisions had changed during the period in question. The court held that the appellant was properly charged with offences that were known to the law at the relevant times. Next, the court considered the admissibility of context evidence in the judge alone trial. The court found that the judge was entitled to take into account the complainant's errors and inconsistencies in assessing her credibility and reliability. The court held that the judge's decision to admit the context evidence did not lead to an unsafe and unsatisfactory conclusion.

The High Court also reviewed the sentencing principles applied in the case. The court noted that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the principles outlined in Di Simoni v The Queen. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court concluded that the appeal against conviction and sentence should be dismissed. The final orders of the court were to affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

Orders