Legal Research
Cases
R v Scott

R v Scott

Case [2004] NSWCCA 254 30 July 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v SCOTT [2004] NSWCCA 254

HEARING DATE(S): 13 February 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 July 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; James J at 2; Hulme J at 3

DECISION: See paragraph 105

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - conduct of counsel - cross examination of accused to suggest he has changed his story - care and directions needed.

CASES CITED: R v Birks (1990) NSWLR 677 followed
R v Dennis [1999] NSWCCA 223; R v Abdallah [2001] NSWCCA 506; Picker v R [2002] NSWCCA 78 considered

PARTIES :
Regina
Christopher Geoffrey SCOTT

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60368/03

COUNSEL: Crown: D Arnott
Appellant: R Button

SOLICITORS: Crown: S Kavanagh
Appellant: S O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/61/0146

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Woods DCJ

- 46 -

60368/03

SULLY J
JAMES J
HULME J

Friday, 30 July 2004

R v Christopher Geoffrey SCOTT

Judgment

1 SULLY J: I agree with the orders proposed by and the reasons of Hulme J.

2 JAMES J: I agree with the orders proposed by and the reasons of Hulme J.

3 HULME J: On 7 December 2001 the abovenamed Appellant was convicted of a charge that he, between 1 October and 6 November 1997 at Dubbo, did have homosexual intercourse with a male person aged 12 at the time.

4 On 28 February 2002 Judge Woods sentenced the Appellant to imprisonment for a term of 7 years including a non-parole period of 4 years, both periods to commence on 3 December 2001. By Notice of Appeal and Grounds of Appeal dated 12 September 2003, the Appellant has appealed against his conviction but made no application to appeal against sentence. There are two grounds of appeal viz:-

1. The cross-examination of the Appellant by the Crown Prosecutor created a miscarriage of justice.

2. In the circumstances of this case, the failure of the trial judge to give a full “Longman warning” constituted a miscarriage of justice.

5 The Crown case was that the Appellant was slightly acquainted with the parents of the complainant, having been introduced to them by his then fiancé Lisa Condie, that he attended on their home which was some distance out of town and suggested to their mother that her boys, the complainant and his younger brother, might like to spend a few days staying with him in town, inter alia, going to the pictures and McDonalds. At most, the Appellant would seem to have met the brother once previously and the complainant not at all. It was the school holidays, their mother agreed and the Appellant, a male friend also known to the complainant’s mother, the complainant and his younger brother then drove to the Appellant’s home. Both boys stayed there for two or three nights being picked up by their mother on the morning of the last day.

6 The complainant alleged that on one night he ingested some beer and rum which the Appellant provided. He said that on that…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [2004] NSWCCA 254
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 254
Decision Date: 30 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the accused, Scott, who was facing criminal charges. The nature of the dispute centred around the conduct of counsel during the cross-examination of the accused. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining whether the cross-examination amounted to an improper attempt to suggest that the accused had altered his story. The case was heard in the higher court of Australia.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the conduct of counsel during the cross-examination of the accused breached any legal standards. The court was required to consider whether the cross-examination constituted an improper suggestion that the accused had changed his story. The court also needed to assess whether the trial judge provided adequate care and direction to ensure that the cross-examination was conducted within proper legal bounds.

The court found that the conduct of counsel during the cross-examination did not amount to an improper suggestion that the accused had changed his story. The court noted that the cross-examination was aimed at testing the consistency and reliability of the accused's testimony. The court emphasised that care and direction from the trial judge were necessary to ensure that the cross-examination remained within the bounds of legal propriety. The court concluded that the trial judge had provided adequate care and direction, thereby preventing any potential miscarriage of justice. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The court's decision served to reinforce the importance of proper conduct during cross-examination and the need for judicial oversight to ensure fairness in the trial process.

Orders