R v Murre - [2001] NSWCCA 286

CITATION: REGINA v MURRE [2001] NSWCCA 286

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60454/00

HEARING DATE(S): 4 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 July 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Michael Anton MURRE

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hulme J at 2; Adams J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0593

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sides DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr P R Boulten (Appellant)
Mr M C Grogan (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Greg Walsh & Co (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Sexual assault - complaint to police 25 years later - appropriate directions - content of Longman direction

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
R v CPK (unreported, NSWCCA 21 June 1995)
R v Eishauer (unreported, NSWCCA 19 September 1997)
R v Longman (1989) 168 CLR 79
Crampton v The Queen [2000] HCA 60, (2000) 117 A Crim R 222

DECISION: Conviction quashed; Judgment and verdict of acquittal entered

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60454/00

GILES JA

HULME J

ADAMS J

FRIDAY 27 JULY 2001

REGINA v Michael Anton MURRE

JUDGMENT

1 GILES JA: I agree with Adams J.

2 HULME J: I also agree with Adams J.

3 ADAMS J: The appellant was charged under s 81 of the Crimes Act 1900 of a sexual assault which was alleged to have occurred in the winter of 1972 when he was teacher and the complainant was a schoolboy. They were respectively 22 and 13 years of age. The complainant first made a statement to the police about the matter in 1997, some 25 years after the event. The jury in the appellant’s first trial had been unable to agree on a verdict. A second trial, conducted in May 2000, resulted in his conviction and, on 22 June 2000, he was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen months suspended on certain conditions as to supervision. Before dealing with the grounds of appeal, it is convenient that I should set out the circumstances of the case.

The case at trial

4 The complainant gave evidence that, in the winter of 1972, he and three others, all being pupils in the same form at Marcellin College where the appellant was a teacher, went on a camping trip with the appellant somewhere in the Mittagong area outside Sydney. The purpose of the trip was to look for a suitable location for a future camp involving the whole class. They left Sydney sometime in the afternoon in the appellant’s Wolseley car and arrived shortly before dusk. The camp site was something like an hour's walk from where the car was parked and it was necessary for them to carry the tent and other camping equipment to the site. When they arrived they erected the tent, gathered firewood and lit a fire, had something to eat and then went to sleep. The complainant slept in sheets and blankets on a ground sheet. He was lying next to the appellant, wearing tracksuit trousers over underpants. He said that sometime during the night…

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 Murre

Details

AGLC: R v Murre [2001] NSWCCA 286
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 286
Decision Date: 27 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Murre was heard. Murre was accused of sexually assaulting a young girl 25 years ago. The girl reported the incident to the police, leading to Murre's trial. The case hinged on the appropriate directions to be given to the jury, particularly concerning the Longman direction, which is a guideline for evaluating the credibility of a witness's complaint made long after the event. The court had to decide whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury about this direction and whether the jury was adequately guided in considering the credibility of the complainant's delayed complaint.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge provided the jury with a proper Longman direction and if the jury was adequately informed about the factors they should consider when assessing the credibility of a delayed complaint. The Longman direction is a judicial guideline designed to assist juries in evaluating the credibility of a witness's testimony when the complaint is made a significant time after the alleged event. The court had to determine if the trial judge's directions were sufficient and correctly articulated the principles that should be applied in such circumstances.

The Supreme Court concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate. The court held that the judge did not sufficiently explain the Longman direction, nor did the judge properly inform the jury of the relevant factors they should consider when assessing the credibility of a delayed complaint. The court held that the failure to provide an accurate Longman direction and to adequately instruct the jury on the relevant considerations resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Orders