Legal Research
Cases
R v Leonard

R v Leonard

Case [2006] NSWCCA 267 31 August 2006

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Corroboration

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
164 A Crim R 374

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: LEONARD V. REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 267
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 8 May 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
31 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Grove J at 87; Adams J at 100

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - Appeals - Appeal against conviction - Charges of sexual assaults against female child - Evidence of conduct of sexual nature against complainant which was not the subject of a charge - Corroboration of that incident by complainant's mother - Admitted as relationship evidence - No objection taken at trial - Directions by judge against use as tendency evidence - Whether evidence was in substance used as tendency evidence - Whether error shown in admission of evidence or directions - Application of rule 4.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, ss.97, 100, 101, 137

CASES CITED: B v. The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599
Crampton v. The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161
Doggett v. The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 1290
Gipp v. The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106
KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221
Longman v. The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
M v. The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Mearns v R [2005] NSWCCA 396
Qualtieri v. The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 95
R v. AH (1997) 42 NSWLR 702
R v. Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 410
R v. BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241
R v. DBG [2002] NSWCCA 328
R v. Johnston (1998) 45 NSWLR 362
R v. WRC [2002] NSWCCA 210
Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334

PARTIES: Lance William LEONARD - appellant
Regina - respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/26

COUNSEL: Ms. J. Manuell for appellant
Ms. V. Lydiard for respondent

SOLICITORS: Steve O'Connor for appellant
S. Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, for respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC04/41/0011

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Garling DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 20 August 2004

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Not applicable

CCA 2006/26
DC 04/41/0011

HODGSON JA
GROVE J
ADAMS J
Thursday 31 August 2006

LEONARD, Lance William v. REGINA

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: On 2 June 2004, the appellant was indicted before his Honour Judge Garling at the Nowra District Court on the following charges:

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 Leonard

Details

AGLC: R v Leonard [2006] NSWCCA 267
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 267
Decision Date: 31 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Leonard involved an appeal against conviction where the appellant was found guilty of several charges of sexual assault against a female child. The trial judge had admitted evidence of the appellant's conduct of a sexual nature against the complainant, which was not the subject of a charge. The complainant's mother corroborated the incident, and the evidence was admitted as relationship evidence. The appellant did not object to this evidence at trial. The trial judge gave directions to the jury against using the evidence as tendency evidence, but the appellant argued that the evidence was in substance used as tendency evidence, which was an error.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the appellant's conduct of a sexual nature against the complainant was improperly admitted as relationship evidence and whether it was in substance used as tendency evidence, which would have been an error. The court had to consider the application of the rule 4, which relates to the admissibility of evidence of the accused's previous sexual misconduct with the complainant. The court also needed to determine if any error in the admission of the evidence or the directions given to the jury had affected the safety of the conviction.

The court found that the evidence of the appellant's conduct of a sexual nature against the complainant was not in substance used as tendency evidence, and the directions given to the jury were sufficient to prevent the evidence from being used in that way. The court held that the trial judge's directions were clear and adequate, and the jury would not have been influenced by the evidence in a way that would affect the safety of the conviction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court did not find any error in the admission of the evidence or the directions given to the jury, and the safety of the conviction was not affected.

Orders