Legal Research
Cases
R v Grattan

R v Grattan

Case [2005] NSWCCA 306 2 September 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
R v Grattan [2005] NSWCCA 306
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 24 May 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

2 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan AJA at 1; Simpson J at 186; Rothman J at 187

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the complainant's distressed condition - uncharged acts not complained of - pre-text telephone conversations and email messages - Incorrect directions to jury - Miscarriage of justice

PARTIES:
The Crown
Phillip John Grattan (Appl)

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/117

COUNSEL:
D C Frearson SC (Crown)
B Walker SC/A J Kimmins (Appl)

SOLICITORS:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ryan & Bosscher (Appl)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/11/0695

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Hock DCJ

2005/117

McCLELLAN AJA
SIMPSON J
ROTHMAN J
FRIDAY 2 SEPTEMBER 2005

REGINA v Phillip John GRATTAN

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN AJA: The appellant was tried before Her Honour Judge Hock and a jury at the Sydney District Court on the following charges:

1. That he between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1994 at Bexley in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with the complainant without his consent and knowing that he was not consenting, when the complainant was under the age of 16 years.

2. That he between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1994 at Bexley in the State of New South Wales, did commit an act of indecency towards the complainant who was then under the age of 16 years.

3. That he between 31 August 1997 and 1 November 1997 at Bexley in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with the complainant without his consent and knowing that he was not consenting, when the complainant was under the age of 16 years.

4. That he between 31 August 1997 and 1 November 1997 at Bexley in the State of New South Wales, did attempt to have sexual intercourse with the complainant without his consent and knowing that he was not consenting, when the complainant was under the age of 16 years.

5. That he between 31 August 1997 and 1 November 1997 at Bexley in the State of New South Wales, did commit an act of indecency towards the complainant, who was then under the age of 16 years.

6. That he between 27 August 1999 and 4 September 1999 at Chippendale in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with the complainant without his consent and knowing that he was not consenting, when the complainant was under the authority of Phillip John Grattan.

7. That he between 27 August 1999 and 4 September 1999 at Chippendale in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with the complainant without his consent and knowing that he was not consenting, when the complainant was under the authority of Phillip John…

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 Grattan

Details

AGLC: R v Grattan [2005] NSWCCA 306
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 306
Decision Date: 2 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Grattan involved an appeal by the defendant against his conviction for a criminal offence. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge had made errors in admitting certain evidence and providing directions to the jury, which allegedly led to a miscarriage of justice. The defendant argued that the admission of evidence concerning the complainant's distressed condition, as well as evidence of uncharged acts not complained of, including pre-text telephone conversations and email messages, was prejudicial and should not have been allowed. Additionally, the defendant contended that the trial judge had given incorrect directions to the jury, which further prejudiced the fairness of the trial.

The court considered whether the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of the complainant's distressed condition and the uncharged acts. It was crucial to determine whether such evidence was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have had on the jury. The court also examined whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were correct in law and whether any incorrect directions could have contributed to the defendant's conviction being unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court needed to balance the admissibility of evidence and the necessity of providing accurate legal directions to the jury to ensure a fair trial.

Upon review, the court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in admitting certain evidence and in providing directions to the jury. The evidence of the complainant's distressed condition and the uncharged acts not complained of were considered to have been improperly admitted as they did not meet the criteria for relevance and probative value. Additionally, the court identified specific instances where the trial judge's directions to the jury were incorrect, which contributed to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant's conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to these errors. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed, leading to a retrial of the defendant.

Orders