S E O'Connor (Crown/Resp) Quirk Davidson & Easdown (Appel)
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Apeal against conviction and sentence - Evidence - Admissibility and relevance of history given to doctor - Whether relevance should be limited under s136 - Comments by Judge where credibility is the issue - New trial or acquittal - Leave to cross examine on prior consistent statements - No reference to s192
1 THE COURT: The appellant (“RTB”) was charged with a number of sexual offences under the Crimes Act, 1900. The charges alleged either sexual intercourse (s66A) or acts of indecency (s61O(2)) with a person under the age of ten years. They arose out of allegations made by two sisters. The complainants will each be given a pseudonym to preserve their anonymity. The older girl will be referred to as “Jennifer”, and the younger as “Elizabeth”. At the time of the alleged offences, Jennifer was eight years old and Elizabeth five years. The appellant was, at that time, sixteen years old.
2 An order was made that there should be separate trials in respect of each complainant. Those relating to the older girl, Jennifer, proceeded first before Knight DCJ and a jury. There were three counts. RTB was convicted on one count.
3 The second trial took place some months later. It was also conducted by Knight DCJ with another jury. There were two counts. RTB was convicted on both.
4 Appeals against conviction have been lodged in respect of both trials. We will describe the first trial, and deal with the grounds of appeal in respect of that trial. We will then deal with the second trial.
The first trial
5 Jennifer was one of a number of children from a family living in Dubbo. The appellant also lived in Dubbo. He was involved in a local sporting team. The coach of that team was Jennifer’s father. Through that association the appellant became well known to the family. Indeed, the two families became friends. There was regular contact. From time…
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 RTB
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v RTB [2002] NSWCCA 104
Case
[2002] NSWCCA 104
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v RTB, the appellant was convicted of offences related to supplying a dangerous drug and was sentenced to imprisonment. The court of appeal heard the appellant's appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. The central issue was whether the trial judge had correctly admitted and considered certain historical information given to a doctor by the appellant, and whether the judge's comments about credibility influenced the outcome of the trial. Additionally, the court examined whether the appellant should be granted leave to cross-examine witnesses on prior consistent statements, and if this could have affected the verdict.
The court determined that the trial judge's admission of the historical information was appropriate as it was relevant to the appellant's credibility and state of mind. The judge's comments on credibility were found to be permissible, given that credibility was a central issue in the trial. The court also concluded that there was no basis for a new trial or acquittal, as the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant was not entitled to cross-examine witnesses on prior consistent statements without first establishing their relevance and admissibility under the rules of evidence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The court found no error in the trial judge's handling of the evidence or in the comments made about credibility. Additionally, the court did not grant leave to cross-examine on prior consistent statements, as it was not deemed necessary for the outcome of the appeal. The appellant's conviction and sentence remained unchanged.