Legal Research
Cases
R v Walton

R v Walton

Case [1999] NSWCCA 452 10 December 1999

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Abuse of Process

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
113 A Crim R 308

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v. WALTON [1999] NSWCCA 452

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60802 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 10 December 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 December 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
WALTON, Maxwell Robert

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 55; Newman J at 56; Greg James J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/61/0202

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Kichington, DCJ.

COUNSEL: Crown: M. Grogan
App: G.P. Craddock

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal - evidence - complaint admissibility - principle in Graham (1998) 157 ALR 404 - admissibility of prior consistent statement - conduct of Crown Prosecutor - duty of fairness - improper address - contrary to standards of fairness, Bar Rules and Prosecution Guidelines - consideration of principles referred to in Kneebone [1999] NSWCCA 279 - substantial miscarriage of justice - discretion to order new trial where miscarriage fault of Crown Prosecutor - acquittal entered

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Graham (1998) 157 ALR 404
Crofts (1996) 186 CLR 427
Gillard [1999] NSWCCA 21
Dwyer [1999] NSWCCA 47
RNS [1999] NSWCCA 122
Whitmore [1999] NSWCCA 247
DWH [1999] NSWCCA 255
Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty. Limited v. Commissioner of Taxation (1983) 1 NSWLR 1
Kneebone [1999] NSWCCA 279
Apostilides (1983-84) 154 CLR 563
James [1999] NSWCCA 191
Jones (1997) 149 ALR 598
King (1986) 161 CLR 423
Parker [1997] HCA 13; (1997) 186 CLR 494

DECISION: Appeal upheld

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60802 of 1998 CORAM: BEAZLEY, JA.
NEWMAN, J.
GREG JAMES, J.
FRIDAY 10 DECEMBER 1999

REGINA v. MAXWELL ROBERT WALTON
JUDGMENT
1 GREG JAMES, J: This appeal is brought from the appellant's conviction in the District Court of New South Wales on one count of indecent assault of a girl under the age of 16 years. This offence is provided for under s.61M(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and is punishable by a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The appellant was in respect of that conviction placed on a recognizance for three years with a supervision component. 2 The appellant had gone to trial on two counts of indecent assault upon the same complainant. The jury acquitted him of one count. 3 The first count, that of which the appellant was convicted, related to an occasion on which the complainant asserted the appellant had fondled and kissed her breasts after having, with her consent, squeezed her pimples. 4 The second count related to an alleged touching of the complainant's vagina when she was sharing a bed with the appellant and his daughter whilst on holidays. 5 Three grounds of appeal are asserted:-

"1. That his Honour erred in admitting evidence of complaint to Ms. Amanda Klein; and

2. That his Honour erred in his directions concerning the evidence of the appellant's daughter."

6 A further ground was added at the hearing by amendment:-

"3. The…

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 Walton

Details

AGLC: R v Walton [1999] NSWCCA 452
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 452
Decision Date: 10 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walton was heard by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, Mr Walton, was convicted of two counts of indecent assault and two counts of buggery. The appeal focused on the admissibility of evidence and the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor. The legal issues centered on whether the Crown Prosecutor's actions resulted in a breach of the duty of fairness and whether such a breach constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial.

The court examined whether the Crown Prosecutor's conduct, which included an improper address to the jury, breached the principles of fairness and procedural correctness as outlined in Graham (1998) 157 ALR 404. The appeal also considered whether the admission of the appellant's prior consistent statement was appropriate under the relevant legal principles. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the misconduct of the Crown Prosecutor, as per the guidelines in Kneebone [1999] NSWCCA 279, resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the Crown Prosecutor's improper address to the jury constituted a breach of the duty of fairness. This breach was deemed contrary to the standards set out in the Bar Rules and the Prosecution Guidelines. The court found that the admission of the appellant's prior consistent statement was not in itself problematic but was influenced by the overall conduct of the Crown Prosecutor. Given these factors, the court determined that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the Crown Prosecutor's actions. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to order a new trial, entering an acquittal in the interests of justice.

Orders