R v Crampton - [1999] NSWCCA 130

CITATION: R v CRAMPTON [1999] NSWCCA 130

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60502/98

HEARING DATE(S): 13 May 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 June 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA
(Crown)
v
Alan James CRAMPTON
(Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Barr J at 2; Greg James J at 48

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/0298

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Karpin DCJ

COUNSEL:
PG Berman
(Crown)
SJ Odgers
(Appellant)

SOLICITORS:
CK Smith
(Crown)
MacMahon Associates
(Appellant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sexual offences - failure to complain - whether directions adequate; Criminal Law - sexual offences - two complainants neither of whom corroborated the other - whether Jones v Dunkel direction necessary; Criminal Law - multiple counts - whether necessary to instruct jury that they might take into account a reasonable doubt on one count in deciding any other count

CASES CITED:
R v Johnston, Court of Criminal Appeal 31.7.98 unrep
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Jones v The Queen (1997) 149 ALR 598
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
R v Mitchell, Court of Criminal Appeal 5.4.95 unrep

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60502/98
WOOD CJ at CL
BARR J
GREG JAMES J

Tuesday, 1 June 1999

Regina v Alan James CRAMPTON
JUDGMENT
1   WOOD CJ at CL: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Barr J. I agree with his reasons and the orders he proposes.
**********
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60502/98

WOOD CJ at CL
BARR J
GREG JAMES J
Tuesday, 1 June 1999

REGINA v Alan James CRAMPTON

JUDGMENT

2   BARR J: The appellant appeals against a conviction entered in the District Court following his trial by jury. He was charged with two counts of committing an act of indecency with a boy named Neil Douglas McAlister, one count of indecently assaulting him and two counts of indecently assaulting a second boy, David John Lansley. The appellant was convicted of the first count but the jury were unable to agree about the others.
3   The appellant was a school teacher who taught children with learning disabilities. The complainants were two of his pupils.
4   The first count concerned an incident in which the appellant masturbated himself in the presence of Mr McAlister.
5   The second count concerned an incident in which the appellant was said to have exposed his erect penis to Mr McAlister and placed a plastic object over it. Mr Lansley also was present.
6   The basis of the third count was an incident in which the appellant was said to have required Mr McAlister to masturbate him. Mr Lansley also was present.
7   The fourth count asserted that the appellant exposed his penis to Mr Lansley, required him to expose his penis and touched his penis. Mr McAlister also was present.
8   The final count asserted that the appellant rubbed himself against Mr Lansley and handled his penis. Mr McAlister also was present.
9…

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 Crampton

Details

AGLC: R v CRAMPTON [1999] NSWCCA 130
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 130
Decision Date: 1 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia against the decision of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, Mr Crampton, was convicted of sexual offences against two complainants. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to provide adequate directions to the jury regarding the complainants’ failure to complain and the necessity of a Jones v Dunkel direction due to the lack of corroboration between the complainants. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, but Mr Crampton sought special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The central legal issues were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and whether a Jones v Dunkel direction was necessary. The court also considered whether it was necessary to instruct the jury that they could take into account a reasonable doubt on one count when deciding any other count. The appellant argued that the trial judge did not adequately address the failure of the complainants to complain immediately, which is a factor that the jury must consider. The appellant also argued that the trial judge should have directed the jury regarding the lack of corroboration between the two complainants. Finally, the appellant argued that the trial judge should have instructed the jury to consider the reasonable doubt on one count when deciding the other counts.

The High Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and that there was no need for a Jones v Dunkel direction. The court held that the trial judge properly directed the jury to consider the failure of the complainants to complain immediately and the lack of corroboration between the complainants. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the reasonable doubt on one count were also adequate. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

Orders