R v F

Case [2002] NSWCCA 125 9 April 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 129 A Crim R 126

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v F [2002] NSWCCA 125

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60779/01

HEARING DATE(S): 20/2/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 April 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
F

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 2; Bell J at 56

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 1/11/0497

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Hock DCJ

COUNSEL : G I O Rowling (Crown)
P Byrne SC (CCF)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
David Giddy & Associates

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Evidence - admissibility - tendency and coincidence - evidence of similar offences with other victims - possibility of concoction - complainants at same school, but of different ages with no reason to socialise together - indecent assault by teacher - joinder of counts or severance of counts - no formal orders made by judge.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75
BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275
Chow v DPP (1992) 28 NSWLR 593
Commonwealth v Mullane 1961) 106 CLR 166
Connolly v Director of Public Prosecutions (1964) AC 1254
De Jesus v The Queen (1986) 61 ALJR 1
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106
Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292
KRM v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 550
The King v Snow (1915) 20 CLR 315
Legal Practitioners' Complaint Committee v A Practitioner (1987) 46 SASR 126
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461
Regina v ACK, NSWCCA 22 April 1996
Regina v AH (1997) 42 NSWLR 702 at 709
R v Bailey (1988) 36 A Crim R 633
R v Bozatis and Spanakakis (1997) 97 A Crim R 296
Regina v Colby [1999] NSWCCA 261
Regina v Cooper, NSWCCA 24 February 1998,
R v Georgiou (1999) NSWCCA 125
Regina v GLC, NSWCCA 31 March 2000
R v Lock (1997) 91 A Crim R 356
R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457
Regina v OGD (No 2) [2000] NSWCCA 404
R v Powch (1988) 14 NSWLR 136
R v Rogerson (1990) 45 A Crim R 253
Regina v Saunders (1994) 72 A Crim R 355
R v Steffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633
Regina v T, NSWCCA 19 October 1988
Smith v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 1398
Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528
Thompson v The Queen (1989) 152 CLR 528

DECISION: Crown appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal granted to respondent, but appeal dismissed.

- 36 -IN THE COURT OF

60779/01

MEAGHER JA
WOOD CJ at CL
BELL J
Tuesday 9 april 2002

Regina v F

The accused was charged with the indecent assault of five former pupils. The crown originally consented to presenting individual indictments, but there was no formal order made. Verdicts of not guilty were entered when the respondent stood trial on charges against the first complainant. On 24th October, the DPP filed a notice 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 R v F

Details

AGLC: R v F [2002] NSWCCA 125
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 125
Decision Date: 9 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, F, who was charged with multiple counts of indecent assault against three different students. The nature of the dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence concerning the similar assaults on the other students and whether the jury should have been warned about the risks of convicting based solely on the coincidence and tendency evidence. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of similar offences was admissible and, if so, whether the trial judge was required to warn the jury about the possibility of concoction and the coincidence of the evidence. Additionally, the court considered whether the joinder of the counts was appropriate or whether severance of the counts should have been ordered.

The court found that the evidence of similar offences was admissible, as the complainants were not known to each other and there was no reason for them to collude. The court held that the judge was not required to warn the jury about the possibility of concoction, as the evidence demonstrated that the incidents were independent and not the result of any collusion between the complainants. Regarding the joinder of counts, the court concluded that there was no error in the trial judge's decision, as the charges were properly joined and did not prejudice the respondent. The court did not make any formal orders in relation to the appeal.

Orders