PFC v R

Case [2011] NSWCCA 275 15 December 2011

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: PFC v R [2011] NSWCCA 275
Hearing dates: 14 and 24 October 2011
Decision date: 15 December 2011
Before: Giles JA, Hoeben J, Hall J
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - multiple counts of sexual intercourse involving children, using children for pornographic purposes and doing act with the intent to pervert the course of justice - competence of counsel at trial - fresh evidence - miscarriage through duress or medication affecting giving instructions - errors by Crown Prosecutor or in summing-up - inconsistency of verdicts - unsafe or unsatisfactory verdicts - appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987;
Criminal Appeal Act 1912.
Cases Cited: [C] v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 673;
[C] v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 122; (2008) 185 A Crim R;
Dungay v R [2010] NSWCCA 82;
Clarkson v R [2007] NSWCCA 70; (2007) 171 A Crim R 1;
Craig v The King (1933) 49 CLR 429;
GAR v R (No 1) [2010] NSWCCA 163;
Ignjatic v R (1993) 68 A Crim R 333;
Jovanovski v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2009] NSWCCA 284;
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259;
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487;
M'Naghten's Case (1843) 1 Car & Kir 130n; (1843) 4 State Tr NS 847; [1843-60] All ER 229; (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200; (1843) 8 ER 718;
Monteiro v R [2011] NSWCCA 113;
R v Abusafiah (1991) 24 NSWLR 531;
R v Abu-Chabake [2004] 149 A Crim R 417;
R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563;
R v Gallagher (1986) 160 CLR 392;
R v Abusafiah (1991) 24 NSWLR 531;
R v Presser [1958] VR 45;
Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116;
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13;
Still v R [2010] NSWCCA 131.
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: PFC - Appellant
Crown - Respondent
Representation: Counsel:
Appellant in person
F Veltro - Respondent
Solicitors:
Appellant in person
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent

File Number(s): 2008/3811
Decision under appeal

Before:

Norrish DCJ

File Number(s):

DC 2007/31/0238; 2008/11/0616

Judgment

THE COURT : The appellant stood trial before Norrish DCJ on an indictment containing 29 counts, some with alternatives. There were 19 counts of sexual assault or acts of indecency involving 6 different complainants, 3 counts of possessing child pornography or using a child for pornographic purposes, and 7 counts of perverting the course of justice. The trial occupied 27 days from 11 May 2009 to 19 June 2009. A verdict of not guilty on one count was directed on 25 May 2009. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on 23 of the remaining 28 counts.

On 21 December 2009 the appellant was sentenced to a total period of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 10 years…

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 PFC v R

Details

AGLC: PFC v R [2011] NSWCCA 275
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 275
Decision Date: 15 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appellant, PFC, who had been convicted of multiple counts of sexual intercourse involving children, using children for pornographic purposes, and doing an act with the intent to pervert the course of justice. The decision was made by the High Court of Australia. The appellant sought to appeal against his conviction, citing various grounds including the competence of counsel at trial, fresh evidence, and potential errors by the Crown Prosecutor or in the summing-up.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the trial had been conducted fairly, whether there were any errors that affected the outcome, and if the verdicts were unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court considered whether there was any evidence of duress or medication that might have affected the appellant's ability to give instructions to his counsel, and whether any errors by the Crown Prosecutor or in the summing-up could have prejudiced the appellant. Additionally, the court examined the consistency of the verdicts and whether they were based on reliable evidence.

The court found that the trial was conducted fairly and that there were no significant errors that affected the outcome. It was determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the verdicts, and there was no indication that the appellant's ability to give instructions was compromised. The court also found that the verdicts were consistent and based on reliable evidence, concluding that they were not unsafe or unsatisfactory. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The court did not make any specific orders beyond dismissing the appeal.

Orders