R v GPP - [2000] NSWCCA 181

CITATION: R v GPP [2000] NSWCCA 181

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60302/98

HEARING DATE(S): 09/12/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 May 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v GPP

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Hulme J at 2; Barr J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/61/0179

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kirkham DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: R Ellis
Appellant: R Greenhill QC/D Spears

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: Gibsons

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - appellant convicted at four consecutive trials of sexual assaults on four children - whether jury directed appropriately - HELD: yes. - Criminal Law - appellant convicted at four consecutive trials of sexual assaults on four children - whether verdicts unreasonable - HELD: no. - Criminal Law - sentencing - sexual assaults on four children - whether sentences excessive - HELD: no.

CASES CITED:
Aitchison v Director of Public Prosecutions (1996) 90 A Crim R 448
R v JTS, Court of Criminal Appeal 25.5.98 unreported
R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450
R v RNS [1999] NSWCCA 122

DECISION: Appeal dismissed; Leave to appeal against sentence refused

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60302/98
DUNFORD J
HULME J
BARR J
Friday, 19 May 2000

R v GPP

JUDGMENT

1   DUNFORD J: I agree with Barr J.
IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL
No: 60302/98

DUNFORD J
HULME J
BARR J

Friday, 19 May 2000

REGINA -v- GPP

JUDGMENT

2   HULME J: I agree with Barr J.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60302/98

DUNFORD J
HULME J
BARR J
Friday, 19 May 2000

REGINA v GPP

JUDGMENT

3   BARR J: The appellant, whom I will refer to as GPP, appeals against convictions entered in the District Court for sexual offences against four children. The Crown presented a separate indictment for each complainant and the four trials were heard consecutively.
4   There is also an application for leave to appeal against the sentences.

The first trial

5   The complainant at the first trial was a child I will call SKM. She was a niece of the appellant. There were seven counts. The first concerned an assault that was alleged to have taken place between 14 July 1981 and 31 December 1982, when the complainant was about seven years old. The accused, the complainant and their families resided in a village in western New South Wales. The appellant took the complainant and a cousin BY, then five years of age, on his motorcycle to a dam in a paddock a short distance from the village. When they arrived the appellant dropped off the cousin and took the complainant on a further two hundred metres to a tree. There he sat her down, put his hands down the front of her underpants and inserted a finger into her vagina.
6   There was no evidence of complaint. The Crown did not call the complainant’s cousin to give evidence.
7   The appellant gave evidence denying the act complained of. He said that he did not own or have the…

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 [2000] NSWCCA 181
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 181
Decision Date: 19 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v GPP involved the appellant, who faced convictions at four separate trials for the sexual assault of four different children. The appellant appealed against the convictions and the sentences imposed, challenging the directions given to the jury, the safety of the verdicts, and the severity of the sentences. The appeal was heard in the relevant court, which carefully considered the arguments and evidence presented.

The court was tasked with determining whether the jury had been appropriately directed in each trial and whether the verdicts reached were reasonable in light of the evidence. The court also examined whether the sentences imposed were excessive given the nature and gravity of the offences. In considering these issues, the court assessed the manner in which the trials were conducted, the credibility of the evidence, and the principles of sentencing applicable to such serious offences.

Upon review, the court found that the jury had been properly directed in each trial, and that the verdicts were safe and supported by the evidence presented. The court held that the sentences were neither excessive nor manifestly inadequate, taking into account the cumulative impact of the crimes and the need for deterrence and denunciation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.

The court did not order any further action, maintaining the original verdicts and sentences as appropriate and just under the circumstances presented.

Orders