R v TKWJ

Case [2000] NSWCCA 246 13 September 2000

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v T.K.W.J [2000] NSWCCA 246

FILE NUMBER(S):
060426/98

HEARING DATE(S): 06/07/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 13/09/2000

PARTIES:
Regina v T.K.W.J

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA James J Adams J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 96/31/0391

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Viney DCJ

COUNSEL:
GP Craddock - Appellant
LMB Lamprati - Crown

SOLICITORS:
TA Murphy - Appellant
SE O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
By majority - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60426/98

SHELLER JA
JAMES J
ADAMS J

Wednesday 13 September 2000

REGINA v TKWJ

JUDGMENT

SHELLER JA: I have had the benefit of reading the draft judgments of James and Adams JJ. Like James J and for the reasons his Honour has given I do not think the appellant underwent an unfair trial or a trial in which he had less chance of being acquitted than he would have had if the trial had proceeded as his counsel had anticipated. In my opinion, the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.
JAMES J: TKWJ has appealed against his conviction, after a trial in the District Court before his Honour Judge Viney QC and a jury, on two counts of aggravated indecent assault, offences under s61M(1) of the Crimes Act, and one count of an aggravated act of indecency, an offence under s61O(1) of the Crimes Act. The two counts of aggravated indecent assault were the first and the third counts in the indictment and the count of an aggravated act of indecency was the second count in the indictment.
It was alleged by the Crown that the first two offences in the indictment had been committed on the same occasion on or about 17 December 1995 and that the third offence in the indictment had been committed in December 1995 or January 1996. The victim of all the offences (who I will refer to as “the complainant”) was a boy born on 20 December 1983, so that he was just under twelve or just over twelve at the time the offences were allegedly committed. The complainant had a sister, who I will refer to as “K”, who had been born in August 1988.
At the time the offences were allegedly committed the mother of the complainant and K was in a relationship with the appellant. The history of that relationship was established by evidence given at the trial by the complainant’s mother and by the appellant. The appellant and the complainant’s mother had entered into the relationship in February 1993. In December 1994 the appellant, the complainant’s mother and the two children moved to Kempsey. In May 1995 the appellant moved alone to a small settlement near Kempsey, which I will refer to as “H.H”. A few weeks later the appellant was joined by the complainant’s mother and the two children. In late 1995, because of his misconduct, the complainant was sent to live with his grandparents in Wollongong for two months. He then…

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 TKWJ

Details

AGLC: R v TKWJ [2000] NSWCCA 246
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 246
Decision Date: 13 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v TKWJ came before the court, involving the defendant, TKWJ, charged with drug-related offences. The dispute centred on the legality of the search and seizure conducted by police officers, and the admissibility of the evidence obtained. The case was heard in a higher court in Australia, tasked with reviewing the decisions of a lower court.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether the search conducted by the police officers was lawful under the relevant statute, and secondly, if the evidence obtained from the search could be admitted in court. The defendant argued that the search was unlawful and that the evidence obtained should be excluded as it was the product of an illegal search.

The court considered the statutory provisions governing searches and seizures, along with case law on the admissibility of evidence obtained through unlawful means. The court found that the search was conducted in accordance with the law and that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was being committed. Consequently, the evidence obtained was deemed admissible. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that police conduct adhered to legal standards while also recognising the need to balance this with the practical realities of law enforcement.

In light of the court's findings, the charges against TKWJ were upheld. The defendant's appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's decision was affirmed. The case serves as a reminder of the need for law enforcement to operate within the confines of the law while conducting searches and seizures.

Orders