R v BWT

Case [2002] NSWCCA 60 12 April 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 54 NSWLR 241
(2002) 129 A Crim R 153

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v B.W.T [2002] NSWCCA 60

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60252/00

HEARING DATE(S): 30 January 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 April 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
B.W.T

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sully J at 42; Dowd J at 119

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/71/0141

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Howie DCJ

COUNSEL : L. Lamprati - Crown
P. Hamill - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
D. J. Humphreys - Appellant

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1906 (W.A.)
Crimes Act 1958 (Vict.)

CASES CITED:
The Queen v Maric (1978) 52 ALJR 631
The Queen v Glennon [1992] 173 CLR 592
R v George (1987) 29 A Crim R 380
Reg v Channell [2000] NSWCCA 289
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Crampton v The Queen (2000) 176 ALR 369
Doggett v The Queen (2001) 182 ALR 1
Reg v Johnston (1998) 45 NSWLR 362
The Queen v Dixon [2001] NSWCCA 39
Reg v Roddom [2001] NSWCCA 168
Reg. v G.J.H [2001] NSWCCA 128
Reg v Ball [2001] NSWCCA 352
Reg v Murre [2001] NSWCCA 286
Reg v Roberts [2001] NSWCCA 163
Reg v Folli [2001] NSWCCA 531
Reg v Spencer [1987] AC at p.141
Jago v District Court (NSW) 168 CLR 91
Crofts V The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427
Reg v J.G.W [1999] NSWCCA 116
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
CSR Limited & anor v Bouwhuis - unreported - CA: 23 Augusut 1991
Reg v Zorad (1991) 19 NSWLR
Reg v Williams - unreported - CCA: 10 October 1990
Reg v Knight - unreported - CCA: 19 December 1990
Pemble v The Queen(1971) 124 CLR

DECISION: Appeal allowed; convictions recorded and sentences passed in Court below quashed; new trial ordered

-IN THE COURT OF

60252/00

WOOD CJ at CL
SULLY J
DOWD J
Friday 12 April 2002

REGINA v BWT

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: This is yet another appeal which turns upon the question of whether or not the jury was given an adequate instruction in relation to the so-called Longman warning. By reason of the lengthy delay, it clearly was a case calling for such a warning – the only point relevant for this ground of appeal is whether sufficient was said.

2 After giving some general directions to the jury to the effect that they were “required to scrutinise” the evidence of the complainant, and to do so “with some care before [they] rel[ied] upon it”, his Honour continued:

when assessing her evidence in relation to these matters of course you have to take into account that these incidents occurred many years ago and that in respect…

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 R v BWT

Details

AGLC: R v BWT [2002] NSWCCA 60
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 60
Decision Date: 12 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v BWT was an appeal against the appellant's convictions and sentences for multiple counts of sexual misconduct against a complainant. The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge adequately instructed the jury on the effects of a significant delay between the alleged offences and the trial. The appellant argued that the jury directions given by the trial judge were insufficient and did not properly warn the jury of the dangers of convicting based on the complainant's uncorroborated evidence due to the delay. The court held that the jury directions were inadequate as they did not sufficiently warn the jury of the potential dangers of convicting on the complainant's evidence alone due to the significant delay between the alleged offences and the trial. The court emphasised the importance of giving a clear and emphatic warning to the jury in cases involving substantial delay, to ensure that the trial remains fair. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

Orders