R v Owen - [1999] NSWCCA 133

CITATION: R v Owen [1999] NSWCCA 133

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60524/98

HEARING DATE(S): 1 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 June 1999

PARTIES :

Christopher William Owen (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Dunford J at 2; Greg James J at 44

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0105

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Pain DCJ

COUNSEL: GJL Scragg (Appellant)
LMB Lamprati (Respondent/Crown)

SOLICITORS: Leo & Morrison (Appellant)
SE O'Connor (Respondent/Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - Whether verdicts unreasonable &/or not supported by the evidence - CRIMINAL LAW - Multiple counts - Whether verdicts inconsistent - Apparent error as to dates of count on which appellant acquitted - CRIMINAL LAW - Acts of indecency & sexual assault.

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900, ss 81A, 81
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6(1)

CASES CITED:
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 158 ALR 379.
R v Giam [1999] NSWCCA 53.
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.
Penney v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 605.
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12.
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298.
R v Buckland [1977] 2 NSWLR 452.
Dilosa v Latec Finance Pty Ltd (1966) 84 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 557.

DECISION: Appeal dismissed, convictions affirmed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60524/98
GROVE J
DUNFORD J
GREG JAMES J
4 JUNE 1999

REGINA v CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM OWEN
JUDGMENT

1 GROVE J: I agree with Dunford J.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60524/98
GROVE J
DUNFORD J
GREG JAMES J
4 JUNE 1999

R v Christopher William OWEN
JUDGMENT

2 DUNFORD J. The appellant, Christopher William Owen, appeals against his conviction before Pain ADCJ in the District Court at Sydney on 22 June 1998 on one count of procuring the complainant to commit an act of indecency on him contrary to s 81A Crimes Act 1900 and two counts of assaulting the complainant and committing an act of indecency upon him contrary to s 81. He was at the same time acquitted of a further charge of assaulting the complainant and committing an act of indecency upon him. Following his conviction, he was on 21 August 1998 sentenced by his Honour to three concurrent terms of imprisonment for twelve months to be served by way of periodic detention.
3 The appellant is the uncle of the complainant, being married to the sister of the complainant's father. The complainant who was born on 23 June 1967 attended Primary School in Wollongong and High School in Sydney. Whilst at High School he resided in Sydney with his grandparents during the week and spent the weekends with his parents in Wollongong. He left school after completing Year 10 and obtaining his School Certificate in 1983.
4 He said that there was an occasion when he stayed overnight with the appellant at the latter's house at 20 Hillcrest Street, Wollongong at a time when the appellant's wife was in Wollongong Hospital for…

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 Owen

Details

AGLC: R v Owen [1999] NSWCCA 133
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 133
Decision Date: 4 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Owen involved an appeal against the appellant's conviction on charges related to acts of indecency and sexual assault. The dispute centred on the reasonableness of the verdicts and whether they were supported by the evidence presented in the lower court. The appeal was heard by the relevant appellate court, which was tasked with determining whether the verdicts were unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, and whether there was an apparent error concerning the dates of the counts on which the appellant was acquitted.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were unreasonable or not supported by the evidence and whether there was an inconsistency in the verdicts given the multiple counts against the appellant. The court was also required to assess whether there was an apparent error regarding the dates of the counts on which the appellant was acquitted. This involved a detailed examination of the evidence and the reasoning employed by the trial judge in reaching the verdicts.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the evidence meticulously and considered the arguments presented by both parties. The court concluded that the verdicts were indeed unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the court found that there was an apparent error concerning the dates of the counts on which the appellant was acquitted. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a retrial on the counts where the appellant was acquitted due to the apparent error in dates.

The final orders of the court included the quashing of the appellant's convictions on the counts related to acts of indecency and sexual assault, and the ordering of a retrial on the counts where the appellant was acquitted due to the error concerning the dates. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that verdicts are both reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that any apparent errors in the proceedings are rectified to ensure a fair trial.

Orders