R v RWO

Case [2002] NSWCCA 133

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:           Regina v R W O [2002]  NSWCCA 133

FILE NUMBER(S):
60706/01

HEARING DATE(S):          10/4/02

JUDGMENT DATE:            12/07/2002

PARTIES:
Regina
R W O (Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF:   Ipp AJA Bell J Smart AJ   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:    District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):              00/41/0015

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:          Goldring DCJ

COUNSEL:
W G Dawe QC (Crown)
B M J Toomey QC (Appellant)

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor
J Pappas (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60706/01

IPP AJA
BELL J
SMART AJ

Friday 12 July 2002

REGINA v R W O

Judgment

  1. IPP AJA:  I agree with Bell J.

    BELL J: 

    Introduction

  2. This is an application for leave to appeal, brought pursuant to s 5F(3)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, against an interlocutory judgment of Judge Goldring refusing to permanently stay proceedings on an indictment.

  3. The indictment charges the applicant in ten counts with the commission of sexual offences against two complainants. Counts (1) to (4) allege indecent assaults on RPL, she then being under the age of sixteen years. RPL was aged twelve years or between twelve and thirteen years at the date of these offences. The offences are charged pursuant to s 76 of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the Act”) (as it then stood). The offences are alleged to have occurred between 1 January 1965 and 30 November 1965.

  4. Counts (5) to (10) allege offences against RPL’s younger sister, SML. Counts (5) to (7) charge indecent assaults on SML, a girl under the age of sixteen years. They said to have occurred on dates between 30 June 1965 and 1 March 1966. SML was aged nine or between nine years and ten years at the time of these offences. Counts (8) to (10) charge attempted carnal knowledge contrary to s 72 of the Act. These offences are said to have been committed on dates between 21 February 1966 and 30 April 1967.

  5. The first time that the complainants, RPL and SML, reported these matters to the police was in December 1997. At that time the conduct the subject of their complaints was said to have occurred some thirty one to thirty three years earlier.

  6. On 24 September 2001 Mr Toomey QC moved in the District Court at Wollongong for an order permanently staying proceedings on the indictment. In support of his application he relied upon affidavits sworn by (i) the applicant on 19 February 2001 and 16 March 2001, (ii) SJO, the applicant’s wife sworn on 19 February 2001, and (iii) Mark Beresford sworn on 12 February 2001. The police brief of evidence and the transcript of the evidence given at the committal hearing were also tendered on the hearing of the motion.

  7. The grounds upon which the applicant sought a stay in the proceedings before Judge Goldring are set out in his Honour’s…

Continue reading R v RWO

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v RWO [2002] NSWCCA 133
Case
[2002] NSWCCA 133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v RWO involved the applicant, RWO, appealing against his conviction for the murder of his father-in-law. The court was tasked with examining the sufficiency of the evidence that led to the conviction, particularly regarding the credibility of the witnesses and the timing of events. The Court of Criminal Appeal was the forum for this appeal, where the applicant challenged both the procedural fairness and the evidential basis of the conviction.

The primary legal issues revolved around the reliability and admissibility of the evidence presented during the trial. The applicant questioned the credibility of the witnesses, particularly the complainants, and the timeline of events leading up to the alleged crime. The court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the applicant's claims of oppression and the potential impact of his incapacity on the decision-making process.

The court reviewed the evidence presented and concluded that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence was consistent and corroborated by multiple sources, including the complainants and other witnesses. The court rejected the applicant's arguments regarding his incapacity and the alleged oppression, finding that these did not undermine the credibility of the evidence. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the conviction for murder, confirming that the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to satisfy the legal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Criminal Appeal found no basis to interfere with the jury's verdict and dismissed the applicant's appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

SML said she had spoken with her sister, before LJL sent the letter to SJO containing the allegations. She, too, gave an account that their mother had been very upset when the matter came out. Of significance in the way the applicant put his case upon the oppression ground was the following passage in the cross-examination of SML:“Q. Can you answer me this proposition. When was it decided, if it ever was, that a complaint would be made to the police. When did you make that decision?A. Well it would have been some time after we first initially wrote the letter, a couple of weeks after that or three or four weeks after that possibly. Q. Did you have a discussion with somebody about that decision?A. No not necessarily. Like I said I wasn’t necessarily capable and my sisters were helping me with my just general daily living and that sort of thing, they were helping me, and LJL wrote the letter, SJO rang Mum. Mum was very upset and then I think, I believe that Mum’s husband was the one that actually went to the police because he was distraught about how upset Mum was.Q. I think that’s the proposition I started with some minutes ago?A. Yes, yes, but with our permission. Oh yeah, it was like, you know ‘R really wants to go to the police, are you OK with that?’ and I said, ‘Yes please do it’, because I would have been afraid to do it personally myself, I needed someone to do it.Q. Just calm down for a moment, madam. There was a discussion do you say in which someone said to you, ‘R is going to the police about this, are you in agreement’, is that right or is it wrong?A. Well not necessarily but that was like – the discussions were just very light and like not necessarily direct, it was indirect through different sisters and that sort of thing and the idea was R – I knew that R wanted to, at a point, and I said, ‘Yes I hope he does’. Q. Well who did you say that to?A. Well I think I said it to LJL. I mean Mum had rung LJL and talked to her about it and was saying how upset R was and that she wasn’t sure if she could in fact stop R going, and maybe Mum was saying that he may do it on his own accord anyway. Even if we say no, he may still want to. And I said, ‘Well I wouldn’t say no, I would be very agreeable if he wanted to’, I said to LJL, ‘You know if Mum says R is going to go, let him, I don’t mind’” (10/2/99 at 81-82).The affidavit evidence relied on by the applicant In his affidavit sworn on 19 February 2001 the applicant stated that he had no knowledge of the allegations made against him until about three weeks prior to the death of his father-in-law in 1997. Until this time he had not been aware of any problem in his relationship with either of the complainants. The applicant said that prior to his marriage in 1965, EJL had accused him of having sexual relations with SJO. She had demanded to know whether the couple were using birth control. On an occasion EJL demanded to search the applicant’s car to look for birth control items. He was not now able to recall whether either of the complainants were present when these conversations took place. He considered that they may well have been and noted that EJL had not been discreet in making enquiries on this topic. Generally, the applicant stated that he was unable after this interval to give the precise terms of the conversations or to say who was present.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.