Legal Research
Cases
R v James

R v James

Case [1999] NSWCCA 191 23 July 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v James [1999] NSWCCA 191

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60370/98

HEARING DATE(S): 15/04/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Reginald Robert James

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Simpson J at 26; Bell J at 70

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/51/0073

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ducker DCJ

COUNSEL: Appellant: B M Niven
Respondent: P G Ingram

SOLICITORS:
R Gray

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW; Appeal againt conviction; Indecent assault; decision in R v Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439 applied; conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory; no departure from principle in R v Murphy (1985) 4 NSWLR 42 as to directions given by trial judge about character; convictions quashed.

CASES CITED:
Rv Andrews Weatherfoil Ltd (1971) 56 Cr App R
31
Rv Crisologo (1997) 99 A Crim R 178
R v Crofts (1996) 186 CLR 427
R v Durante [1972] 1 WLR 1612
R v Fleming [1998] HCA 68; (1999) 73 ALJR 1
R v Giam [1999] NSWCCA 53
R v Hunt [1968] 2 QB 433
R v Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439
R v Kilby (1973) 129 CLR 460
R v Kirkman (1987) 44 SASR 591
R v MacKenzie (1996) 190 CLR 348
R v Murphy (1985) 4 NSWLR 42
R v Stone (unreported 13 December 1954)
R v Wilkinson [1970] Crim LR 176

DECISION: By majority: appeal allowed; conviction quashed. Verdict of acquittal entered

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60370/98

BEAZLEY JA
SIMPSON J
BELL J

Friday 23 July 1999

REGINA v Reginald Robert JAMES

Judgment
1    BEAZLEY JA: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Simpson J in this matter. As her Honour has set out the facts it is not necessary to refer to them again. I agree with her Honour’s reasons in relation to the trial judge’s directions as to character. I wish however, to deal separately with the question of whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory because of inconsistency between the verdicts.
2    The High Court has dealt with this question on two occasions recently. In MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, the appellant, a solicitor, had been charged with two counts of making a false statement on oath (s 327(1) of the Crimes Act) and in the alternative, with two counts of perjury (s 328) in relation to evidence he had given at the trial of a client. The jury convicted on both the s 327 charges, but acquitted on the perjury charges (the more serious charges).
3    A question arose on the appeal as to whether the verdicts were inconsistent, resulting in convictions which were unsafe and unsatisfactory. Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ considered that six general propositions governing the question whether verdicts were inconsistent could be discerned from the authorities. I will attempt to summarise them but regard should be had to the propositions as fully explained at 366-368 of the judgment.

(i) There is a distinction between legal and factual inconsistency, the former usually being…

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 James

Details

AGLC: R v James [1999] NSWCCA 191
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 191
Decision Date: 23 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v James involved an appeal against the defendant's conviction for indecent assault. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court where the defendant sought to overturn his conviction based on the argument that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding character evidence were improper. This appeal followed a decision in a similar case, R v Jones, where it was held that certain directions could lead to an unsafe and unsatisfactory conviction.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge's directions regarding character evidence were correct and whether they adhered to the principles set out in the case of R v Murphy. The court had to determine if the trial judge's directions constituted a departure from the principle that character evidence should not unduly influence the jury's decision. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory based on these directions.

The court, in delivering its judgment, closely examined the trial judge's directions and compared them with the established legal principles. It found that the trial judge's directions did not depart from the principles set out in R v Murphy and were consistent with the approach to character evidence. However, the court determined that the trial judge's directions, when considered in the context of the entire trial, led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory conviction. Consequently, the court quashed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial.

Orders