R v Pidoto - [2002] VSCA 60

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 36 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
TERENCE MELVILLE PIDOTO

---

JUDGES:	CALLAWAY, BATT and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25-26 March 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 May 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 60

---

Criminal law – Conviction – Indecent assault on a male person under 16 years – Long delay between the alleged offences and complaint to the police – Claim for compensation initiated shortly after the making of an earlier complaint – Admissibility of documentary evidence (medical histories and solicitor’s letters) for purpose of impugning complainant’s credibility – Evidence of the complaint not admissible in the particular circumstances to demonstrate consistency of conduct or to rebut the suggestion of recent invention – Conviction quashed – Re-trial ordered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T.P. Burke	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. Mr R.A.R. Lewis	Cannon & Augustinus

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

I gratefully adopt the statement of facts and issues in the reasons for judgment prepared by Vincent, J.A. I turn first to ground 3(i) and (iii).

In the course of his charge the learned trial judge said:

“Concerning that same matter of delay, in this case, you have been told by Ms H., Mr A.’s ex-wife, of a complaint made by her husband to her in 1995. That evidence was led in an attempt to establish that the delay of some 18 years before Mr A. complained to anyone is not inconsistent with the behaviour of which he complained, and to rebut a suggestion made by the defence that Mr A. has recently made up a false story for the purpose of compensation.
...
In considering the evidence that Mr A. did complain to his wife, you must bear this steadily in mind. You may use it if you see fit to accept it as negating inconsistency or recent invention. It may not be used by you as evidence, independent of Mr A., giving additional support to the probability that the events complained of happened. The reason is that the complaint to Ms H. was made by the same person who complains of the crime itself, that is Mr A. Put another way, Mr A. cannot corroborate himself, and that no doubt you will find obvious.”

I have substituted initials for the names of the complainant and his former wife.

The jury would have understood those passages to mean that they could use the evidence of complaint in two distinct ways: first, as negativing inconsistency, which is the same thing as showing consistency, between the complainant’s allegations and his subsequent conduct; and, secondly, to rebut a suggestion that he had invented those allegations with a view to obtaining compensation.

The evidence would have been admissible for the first purpose only if it had satisfied the requirements explained in such cases as Kilby v. R.[1], R. v. Freeman[2] and R. v. Matthews[3]. It did not satisfy those requirements,…

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 Pidoto

Details

AGLC: R v Pidoto [2002] VSCA 60
Case: [2002] VSCA 60
Decision Date: 10 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Pidoto, the defendant was convicted of indecently assaulting a male person under 16 years of age. The case was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the conviction and any associated legal issues. The primary focus of the appeal was the admissibility of certain documentary evidence presented during the trial and the delay between the alleged offences and the complaint to the police. The defendant argued that the lengthy delay and the admissibility of certain evidence impacted the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the conviction.

The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of documentary evidence, specifically the complainant’s medical histories and solicitor’s letters, to impugn the complainant’s credibility. The court was also required to consider the impact of the significant delay between the alleged offences and the complaint on the admissibility of the evidence. Furthermore, the court examined whether the evidence of the complaint was admissible under the circumstances to demonstrate consistency of conduct or to rebut the suggestion of recent invention. The court had to determine whether the admission of such evidence was appropriate and whether it affected the fairness and outcome of the trial.

The court concluded that the delay between the alleged offences and the complaint was substantial and could have influenced the reliability of the evidence presented. The documentary evidence, including the medical histories and solicitor’s letters, was deemed inadmissible as it was not relevant to the issue of the complainant’s credibility and could have prejudiced the defendant. Additionally, the court found that the evidence of the complaint was not admissible in the particular circumstances to demonstrate consistency of conduct or to rebut the suggestion of recent invention. The court determined that these factors cumulatively affected the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the conviction. As a result, the conviction was quashed, and a re-trial was ordered to ensure a fair and unbiased trial process.

Orders