Legal Research
Cases
Oldfield v The Queen

Oldfield v The Queen

Case [2006] NSWCCA 219 25 July 2006

Criminal Liability

Breach of Trust

Admissibility of Evidence

Res Judicata

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
163 A Crim R 242

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Daniel Gerard OLDFIELD v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 219

HEARING DATE(S): 21 June 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Grove J at 54; Hidden J at 55

DECISION: Appeal allowed, convictions quashed and a new trial ordered.

CATCHWORDS: Alleged sexual assaults - four counts - events in one episode - verdicts of guilty on two counts and not guilty on two counts - whether inconsistent verdicts - whether logical and reasonable explanation for differentiation - whether direction required that if reasonable doubt in relation to one or more counts that must be taken into account in assessing complainant's truthfulness and reliability generally - accused's counsel failed to put instructions on certain matters to complainant - Crown Prosecutor's cross-examination of accused included questions about not putting the matters - implicit that accused's evidence of those matters was made up - whether cross-examination permissible - whether warning required that may be explanation for failure to put instructions which did not reflect upon accused's credibility. D

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 60J(1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6(1)

CASES CITED: Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348;
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606;
Pike v R [2006] NSWCCA 32;
R v Abdullah [2001] NSWCCA 506;
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677;
R v Bonat [2004] NSWCCA 240;
R v Cornwell [2006] NSWCCA 116;
R v Dennis [1999] NSWCCA 23;
R v GAR [2003] NSWCCA 224;
R v Manunta (SASR, 28 July 1989, unreported);
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82;
R v Picker [2002] NSWCCA 78;
R v Scott [2004] NSWCCA 254;
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 444.

PARTIES: Daniel Gerard OLDFIELD v REGINA

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/563 CCAP

COUNSEL: P Strickland SC - Appellant
P Ingram - Crown

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor (Legal Aid Commission of NSW) - Appellant
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) - Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 04/41/0261 (Goulburn)

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Williams DCJ + jury of 12

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: Verdict - 28 February 2005
Sentence - 1 July 2005

2006/563 CCAP
DC 04/41/0261 (Goulburn)

GILES JA
GROVE J
HIDDEN J
Tuesday 25 July 2006

Daniel Gerard OLDFIELD v REGINA

Judgment

1 GILES JA: The appellant was charged with four counts of aggravated sexual assault under s 60J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The four counts were in identical terms -

“On the 12th day of September 2004, at Bowral, in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with [the complainant] without her consent, knowing she was not consenting, and at the time of the sexual intercourse maliciously inflicted actual bodily harm on [the complainant].”

2 At the hearing of the appeal a non-publication order was made in respect of evidence which identified or tended…

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 Oldfield v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Daniel Gerard OLDFIELD v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 219
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 219
Decision Date: 25 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Oldfield v The Queen is a case before the court where the defendant, Oldfield, was charged with four counts of sexual assault occurring in a single incident. The complainant testified that the assaults happened, and the jury returned verdicts of guilty on two counts and not guilty on the other two. The primary issues before the court were whether the verdicts were inconsistent, if there was a logical and reasonable explanation for the differentiation in verdicts, and whether a specific direction was required for the jury when considering the complainant's truthfulness and reliability. Additionally, the court had to determine if the cross-examination by the Crown Prosecutor was permissible, particularly if it implicitly suggested that the defendant fabricated certain instructions given to the complainant, and if a warning was necessary to explain potential reasons for not conveying these instructions.

The court examined the consistency of the verdicts and whether there was a reasonable explanation for the differentiation in the jury's decision. It considered whether the jury's assessment of the complainant's credibility and reliability should be influenced by any reasonable doubt regarding one or more counts. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the cross-examination by the Crown Prosecutor was permissible, given that it might have implied that the defendant fabricated the instructions. The court also explored whether a warning was required to inform the jury that there might be other explanations for the failure to convey these instructions that did not necessarily reflect on the defendant's credibility.

The court concluded that the verdicts were not necessarily inconsistent and found that there was a logical and reasonable explanation for the differentiation in the jury's verdicts. The court determined that a specific direction was not required regarding the complainant's credibility and reliability. Additionally, it found that the cross-examination by the Crown Prosecutor was permissible and did not necessitate a warning to the jury about other possible explanations for the failure to convey the instructions. Therefore, the court upheld the verdicts as they were and found no grounds for an appeal on the issues raised.

The final orders of the court affirmed the verdicts of guilty on two counts of sexual assault and not guilty on the other two counts, finding no merit in the defendant's appeal regarding the jury's verdicts, the cross-examination, or the direction given to the jury. The convictions on the two guilty counts were upheld.

Orders