Parton v The Queen - [2016] NSWCCA 291

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Parton v R [2016] NSWCCA 291
Hearing dates: 5 October 2016
Decision date: 09 December 2016
Before: Ward JA at [1];
Harrison J at [87];
RA Hulme J at [88]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – sexual intercourse with child under 10 – judge alone trial - whether trial judge’s verdict unreasonable and not supported by evidence – whether reasonable doubt as to whether incident the subject of the charge in fact related to conduct the subject of an earlier complaint against applicant – whether lack of specificity of complaint gave rise to reasonable doubt – leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 66A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(a)
Cases Cited: Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Ryan v R [2009] NSWCCA 183
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Raymond John Parton (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Coady with Mr G Gee (Applicant)
Ms N Williams (Respondent)
Solicitors:
O’Brien Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/00124997
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

25 August 2015

Before:

Acting Judge Walmsley SC

File Number(s):

2013/00124997

Judgment

WARD JA: The applicant, Raymond John Parton, was convicted on 5 November 2014, following a trial by judge alone in the District Court, of one count of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 years, namely 7 to 9 years, contrary to s 66A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). On the indictment the Crown particularised the offence as having occurred at Yeoval between 4 September 2007 and 21 May 2010. The complainant (KW) was 14 years old at the time of the trial. The applicant is KW’s step-grandfather.
The applicant was sentenced on 25 August 2015 to 9 years’ imprisonment commencing on 9 August 2015, with a non-parole period of 5 years 8 months. He now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on the sole ground that:

The Trial Judge’s verdict is unreasonable, and is not supported by the evidence to the requisite standard of proof.

The applicant requires leave to appeal pursuant to s 5(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) as the ground raised on appeal is a mixed ground of fact and law. Leave to appeal was not opposed by the Crown. As this is a serious offence and having regard to the ground of appeal sought to be raised, leave to appeal should be granted. For the reasons set out below, the appeal should be dismissed.

Background

The applicant places considerable weight on the chronology of events, this being identified as the crucial part of…

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 Parton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Parton v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 291
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 291
Decision Date: 09 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Parton v The Queen, the defendant, Parton, appealed against his conviction for sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years of age. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appeal hinged on the adequacy of the evidence presented during the trial to support the jury’s verdict and whether the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence. The defendant argued that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the incident in question related to conduct that was the subject of an earlier complaint against him. This argument was based on the lack of specificity in the complaint, which, according to the defendant, did not match the details of the incident in question.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable and whether it was supported by the evidence. It was crucial to assess whether the lack of specificity in the complaint could have led to reasonable doubt about the defendant's involvement in the alleged incident. The court examined the evidence and the arguments presented, particularly focusing on the consistency and reliability of the complainant’s testimony and the corroborative evidence, if any, in relation to the earlier complaint.

After a thorough examination of the evidence and the arguments, the High Court found that the trial judge's verdict was not unreasonable and was adequately supported by the evidence. The court held that the lack of specificity in the earlier complaint did not give rise to reasonable doubt, as the overall evidence presented was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction. The court's decision emphasised the importance of assessing the totality of the evidence and the reliability of the testimony in determining the outcome of such sensitive cases.

Orders