Legal Research
Cases
R v Collins

R v Collins

Case [2001] NSWCCA 386 2 October 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v COLLINS [2001] NSWCCA 386 revised - 26/10/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60562/00

HEARING DATE(S): 31 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 October 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v Michael David COLLINS

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Sully J at 123; Newman AJ at 124

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/51/0011

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ducker DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: E A Wilkins
Appellant: J S Stratton

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

CATCHWORDS: Appeal - trial judge's directions to jury - summing up - sexual assault - whether defence case fairly put - directions regarding complaint - whether Longman direction required - whether directions as to motive in error - whether evidence in one count used as evidence of another.

CASES CITED:
R v Lars (1994) 73 A Crim R 91;
Regina v Harvey (NSWCCA, 9 April 1998, unreported)
R v Williams (1999) 104 A Crim R 260
R v Colby [1999] NSWCCA 261
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Doggett v The Queen [2001] HCA 46
R v Mitchell (NSWCCA, 5 April 1995, unreported)
R v Mayberry [2000] NSWCCA 531
R v RCK (NSWCCA, 12 December 1995 unreported)

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60562/00

MASON P

SULLY J

NEWMAN AJ

Tuesday 2 October 2001

REGINA v Michael David COLLINS

The appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court on 11 counts consisting of two counts of aggravated indecent assault, two counts of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, one count of employing a person under 18 years for pornographic purposes, and six counts of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person aged between 10 and 16 years. The appellant at trial denied all allegations of sexual assault, but pleaded guilty to two charges of prohibited drug supply.

The complainant in relation to all but one of the sexual counts was KM, a girl aged between 10 and 12 at the relevant times. The appellant was a close friend of KM’s family and was aged between 46 and 48 at the time of the offences charged.

The appellant challenges certain directions given by the trial judge in the summing up, submitting that the defence case was not fairly put to the jury, that disproportionate time was spent on the evidence in chief of Crown witnesses compared with the cross-examination and defence arguments and that the directions relating to complaint were inadequate. The appellant also submits that the trial judge erred in his directions regarding KM’s motive to lie and the evidence of the complainants AB and NB.

Held, by Mason P, Sully J and Newman AJ concurring:

1. The trial judge’s summing up is balanced when read as a whole. The balance of a summing up is not to be determined by considering what proportion of it relates to the Crown case and what proportion of it relates to the defence case. R v Lars (1994) 73 A Crim R 91 (referred).

2.…

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 Collins

Details

AGLC: R v Collins [2001] NSWCCA 386
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 386
Decision Date: 2 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Collins, the defendant was prosecuted for multiple counts of sexual assault. The trial took place in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the appeal being heard in the Court of Appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's summing up to the jury adequately conveyed the defence case and whether the judge's directions on certain legal matters were appropriate.

The appeal centred on several specific legal directions given by the trial judge. The first issue was whether the defence case had been fairly and accurately presented to the jury. The second issue concerned the trial judge's directions regarding the complainant's complaint and the weight to be given to it. The third issue was whether a Longman direction was required, and if so, whether it was adequately given. The final issue addressed whether the directions concerning motive were erroneous and whether evidence presented in one count was incorrectly used as evidence for another count.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's summing up did not adequately convey the defence case, and that there were errors in the directions given to the jury, particularly concerning the Longman direction and the use of evidence across counts. The court held that these errors were significant enough to warrant a new trial. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the convictions were quashed. The court ordered a retrial to ensure that the jury received accurate and comprehensive directions in line with the applicable legal principles.

Orders