R v Humphrys - [2007] SASC 357

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v HUMPHRYS
[2007] SASC 357
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice White and The Honourable Justice Layton)
9 October 2007
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR CARNAL KNOWLEDGE - PROOF, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE
Application for extension of time to file application for permission to appeal - appeal against conviction - five counts of unlawful sexual intercourse - whether Judge erred in failing to direct jury on effect of intoxication on reliability of complainant's evidence - whether Judge erred in failing to direct jury on standard of proof of uncharged acts.
Held: Judge pointed out potential weak spots in complainant's evidence - no need for further specific direction - no deficiency in summing up - Judge directed jury in accordance with existing authority.
R v Clifford (2004) 233 LSJS 157, distinguished.
Bedi v The Queen (1993) 61 SASR 269, discussed.
R v Nieterink (1999) 76 SASR 56; R v IK (2004) 89 SASR 406; The Queen, M, RB [2007] SASC 207; R v O, AE [2007] SASC 206; R v S, B [2006] SASC 319, considered.

R v HUMPHRYS
[2007] SASC 357
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, White and Layton JJ

DOYLE CJ: Mr Humphrys has applied for an extension of time within which to apply for permission to appeal against certain convictions.
A single Judge considered the application. The Judge’s view was that the proposed grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, and accordingly considered that leave to appeal should be refused. For that reason, she refused to grant an extension of time. That was an appropriate order to make.
Mr Humphrys has applied to have his application for an extension of time and for permission to appeal considered by the Full Court. The Full Court heard argument on the matter, on the basis that the argument would be treated as the hearing of the appeal, if the court were minded to grant an extension of time and to grant permission to appeal.
At the conclusion of the argument the Court ordered that the application for an extension of time be refused. It did so on the basis that the proposed grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, and that accordingly it was not appropriate to grant an extension of time. If the Court had considered that the proposed grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, it would have been an appropriate case in which to grant an extension of time.
What follows are my reasons for joining in the order that was made at the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal.
Mr Humphrys was…

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 Humphrys

Details

AGLC: R v Humphrys [2007] SASC 357
Case: [2007] SASC 357
Decision Date: 9 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Humphrys involved the defendant appealing against his conviction for five counts of unlawful sexual intercourse. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal, and the central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to provide specific directions to the jury regarding the effect of the complainant's intoxication on the reliability of her evidence and the standard of proof for uncharged acts. The court of appeal was tasked with determining whether these alleged errors in the summing up warranted a new trial or an appeal against the conviction.

The court considered the arguments presented by the defendant's counsel and reviewed the summing up by the trial judge. The appeal court found that the judge had already pointed out potential weaknesses in the complainant's evidence and had directed the jury in accordance with existing legal authority. The appeal court concluded that there was no deficiency in the summing up and that the judge's directions were sufficient for the jury to properly assess the evidence.

Given the findings, the appeal court refused permission to appeal on these grounds. The court held that the trial judge's summing up was adequate and did not contain any errors that would warrant a new trial or an appeal against the conviction. The court's decision was based on the principle that the judge had already provided the necessary directions to the jury and that no further specific direction was needed.

In conclusion, the court of appeal upheld the decision of the trial court and denied the extension of time to file an application for permission to appeal. The order made on 18 September 2006, refusing an extension of time for the application, was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I would refuse permission to appeal on these grounds.Conclusion For these reasons, and for the reasons given by the Chief Justice, I agree with the order made on 18 September 2006 refusing an extension of time within which to apply for permission to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.