R v GPP

Case [2001] NSWCCA 493 6 December 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
129 A Crim R 1

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v GPP [2001] NSWCCA 493

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60135/01

HEARING DATE(S): 26 September 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 December 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v GPP

JUDGMENT OF: Heydon JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 122; Carruthers AJ at 123

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/61/0180

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr G E Smith (Crown)
Mr J C Papayanni (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Jeffreys & Associates (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sexual offences - Indecent assault - Attempted rape - Appeal against conviction - Delay in complaint - "Longman" warning - Whether "Longman" warning necessary - Whether delay caused forensic prejudice to accused - Correct form of warning - Discussion of history of warning and relevant case law - Criminal Law - Sexual offences - Indecent assault - Attempted rape - Appeal against conviction - Whether jury verdicts unreasonable, unsafe and unsatisfactory causing miscarriage of justice - Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6(1) - Criminal Practice and Procedure - Appeals - Remedies - Dismissal - New Trial - Whether appeal should be dismissed under proviso to s 6(1) of Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - Whether no substantial miscarriage of justice - Whether error so fundamental as to have caused trial to miscarry - Whether conviction inevitable despite error in trial judge's direction - Whether new trial should be ordered - consideration of discretionary factors - Criminal Appeal Act 1912, ss 6(1) and 8

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

CASES CITED:
R v Aristidis [1999] 2 Qd R 629
R v Arundell [1999] 2 VR 228
Bromley v R (1986) 161 CLR 315
Carr v R (1988) 165 CLR 314
Crampton v R (2000) 75 ALJR 133
Crofts v R (1996) 186 CLR 427
Doggett v R (2001) 75 ALJR 1290
Glennon v R (1994) 119 ALR 706
R v Harvey (Court of Criminal Appeal, 9 April 1998, unreported)
R v Johnston (1998) 45 NSWLR 362
Jones v R (1997) 191 CLR 439
R v K (1997) 68 SASR 405
Kelleher v R (1974) 131 CLR 534
R v Kenny (Court of Criminal Appeal, 29 August 1997, unreported)
Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
Reid v R [1980] AC 343
Robinson v R (1999) 197 CLR 162
R v Roddom [2001] NSWCCA 168
R v Spencer [1987] AC 128
R v Stewart [2001] NSWCCA 260
Singleton v Ffrench (1986) 5 NSWLR 425

DECISION: Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered.

IN THE COURT OF

60135/01

HEYDON JA

WOOD CJ at CL

CARRUTHERS AJ

REGINA v GPP

Criminal Law – Sexual offences – Indecent assault – Attempted rape – Appeal against conviction – Delay in complaint - “Longman” warning – Whether “Longman” warning necessary…

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 GPP

Details

AGLC: R v GPP [2001] NSWCCA 493
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 493
Decision Date: 6 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, GPP, was convicted by a jury of one count of attempted rape and two counts of indecent assault. The appeal against conviction was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal raised two main issues: whether the trial judge should have given a "Longman" warning regarding the delay in reporting the alleged offences, and whether the verdicts were unreasonable, unsafe and unsatisfactory causing a miscarriage of justice.

The court considered the first issue regarding the "Longman" warning. The court discussed the history of the warning and relevant case law, concluding that the warning is necessary when there is a significant delay in reporting and the delay may cause forensic prejudice to the accused. However, the court found that the trial judge's direction was sufficient, and there was no forensic prejudice caused by the delay in this case.

Regarding the second issue, the court considered whether the verdicts were unreasonable, unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court noted that the appeal against conviction is not a re-trial, and the jury's verdict should not be lightly interfered with. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts, and there was no fundamental error that caused a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed under the proviso to s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, as there was no substantial miscarriage of justice and the conviction was inevitable despite any error in the trial judge's direction. No new trial was ordered.

Orders