R v GEC - [2001] VSCA 146

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 211 of 2000

THE QUEEN
	v.
G.E.C.

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, BATT and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 August 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 September 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 146

---

Criminal Law – Conviction – Sexual offences – Directions to the jury – Failure to adduce supporting evidence from a witness – Delay between alleged conduct and the laying of charges – Absence of corroboration – Jones v. Dunkel (1959) 101 C.L.R. 298 – Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Ltd. v. Ferrcom Pty. Ltd. & Anor (1991) 22 N.S.W.L.R. 389 – R. v. Longman (1989) 168 C.L.R. 79.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C.	Pryles & Defteros

CHARLES, J.A.:

I agree with Vincent, J.A. that this application for leave to appeal against conviction should be granted, and orders made, for the reasons given by his Honour.

BATT, J.A.:

I agree with Vincent, J.A.

VINCENT, J.A.:

The applicant pleaded not guilty in the County Court at Melbourne, on 24 July 2000, to a presentment containing 12 counts of sexual offences alleged to have been committed, between 1 February 1979 and 31 December 1981, against the daughter of his then de facto wife.

At the completion of the presentation of the prosecution case, the trial judge directed the jury to acquit the applicant in respect of three of the counts. After a period of deliberation the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all the remaining charges.

A plea in mitigation of penalty was, in due course presented, and, on 1 August 2000, the judge sentenced the applicant as follows:

On count 1 (indecent assault on a girl under 16 years of age) -3 months' imprisonment ;
On count 2 (indecent assault) - 12 months' imprisonment.
On count 3 (indecent assault) - 12 months' imprisonment.
On count 4 (indecent assault) - 18 months' imprisonment.
On count 5 (attempt to procure an act of gross indecency with a girl under 16 years of age) – 18 months' imprisonment.
On count 6 (carnal knowledge of a girl under 10 years of age) – 24 months' imprisonment.
On count 7 (indecent assault) - 12 months' imprisonment.
On count 8 (carnal knowledge of a girl under 10 years of age) – 24 months' imprisonment.
On count 12 (indecent assault) – 12 months' imprisonment.

His Honour directed that 12 months of the sentence imposed on count 8 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on count 6, that three months of the sentence imposed on count 2 be served cumulatively on those two sentences and that six months of the sentence imposed on count 12 be served cumulatively on all other sentences. This created a total effective sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment, in relation to which a non-parole period of two years and three months’ was fixed. It is to be noted,…

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 GEC

Details

AGLC: R v GEC [2001] VSCA 146
Case: [2001] VSCA 146
Decision Date: 6 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v GEC involved the appellant, GEC, contesting his conviction for various sexual offences. The matter was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The crux of the dispute centred on the adequacy of directions given to the jury, the necessity of supporting evidence from a witness, the implications of a significant delay between the alleged conduct and the charges being laid, and the requirement for corroboration in the context of sexual offence cases.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved whether the trial judge erred in the directions provided to the jury and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction without corroboration. The appellant contended that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the need for corroboration in cases involving sexual offences. Additionally, the appellant argued that the absence of evidence from a key witness and the substantial delay between the alleged events and the prosecution undermined the reliability of the prosecution's case.

The court considered the principles established in Jones v. Dunkel, Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Ltd. v. Ferrcom Pty. Ltd. & Anor, and R. v. Longman. It was determined that the trial judge's directions to the jury adequately encompassed the requirement for corroboration. The court found that while the absence of evidence from a particular witness was significant, it was not determinative of the sufficiency of the evidence. Furthermore, the delay in laying charges was considered, but it did not render the evidence inadmissible or unreliable. The court held that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to support the conviction without the need for corroboration.

The High Court upheld the appellant's conviction, finding that the trial judge's directions were appropriate and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellant's conviction for the sexual offences in question.

Orders