Legal Research
Cases
R v Whitehead

R v Whitehead

Case [2000] NSWCCA 400 18 October 2000

Appeal

Breach of Contract

Admissibility of Evidence

Misrepresentation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Whitehead [2000] NSWCCA 400

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60777/99

HEARING DATE(S): 03/10/2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 October 2000

PARTIES :

Daryl Robert Whitehead (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; O'Keefe J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/31/0194

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Nader ADCJ

COUNSEL : (Appellant): P J D Hamill
(Respondent): W G Dawe QC

SOLICITORS: (Appellant): Halliday, Hook, Noonan & Co
(Respondent): S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: AS TO FIRST INDICTMENT - appeal - act of indecency - homosexual intercourse - effectively Crown relied solely upon complainant's evidence - verdict of guilty on two counts and not guilty on one count - whether guilty verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory - AS TO THE SECOND INDICTMENT - appeal - indecent assault - whether conviction should be set aside following plea of guilty by reason of imprudent and inappropriate advice tendered to appellant by his then legal representatives.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61E (1) & (2), 78K

CASES CITED:
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
RAT [2000] NSWCCA 77, 24 March 2000
Davies (NSWCCA, unreported, 16 December 1993)
Ganderton (NSWCCA, unreported, 17 December 1998)
Favero [1999] NSWCCA 320, 11 October 1999

DECISION: See paragraph 29

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60777/99

WOOD CJ at CL

O’KEEFE J

CARRUTHERS AJ

Wednesday, 18 October 2000

REGINA v DARYL ROBERT WHITEHEAD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1    THE COURT: The appellant Daryl Robert Whitehead was arraigned before his Honour Acting Judge Nader QC and a jury of twelve at the Muswellbrook District Court on 30 August 1999 upon an indictment containing seven counts.
2 The first count was under s 61E(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, as amended, (‘the Act’) (an act of indecency towards a person under the age of sixteen years). The remaining six counts were under s 78K of the Act (homosexual intercourse with a male person between ten and eighteen years of age). The alleged offences were said to have been committed at various dates between 10 February 1982 and 30 December 1985. The sole complainant JGA was born on 10 February 1970. The offences were alleged to have occurred whilst the appellant and the complainant worked together on farms in the Hunter Valley district of New South Wales.
3    At the completion of the complainant’s evidence-in-chief on the first day of the trial, his Honour directed a verdict of not guilty with respect to counts three and six. On the following day his Honour directed a verdict of not guilty in relation to counts two and seven. At the same time his Honour permitted the Crown to amend the indictment to vary the dates between which the offence in count five was alleged to have been committed.
4    For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that the only evidence of significance in the Crown case was that of the complainant and an ERISP (exhibit A)…

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 Whitehead

Details

AGLC: R v Whitehead [2000] NSWCCA 400
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 400
Decision Date: 18 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Whitehead involved the appellant, Whitehead, who was appealing against his convictions on various counts of indecent acts and assaults. The matter was heard before the court, which was tasked with reviewing the evidence and legal arguments presented by both the Crown and the appellant. The appellant contested the safety and satisfaction of the guilty verdicts rendered by the jury, as well as the appropriateness of his plea of guilty on one count due to the advice he received from his legal representatives.

The court had to address two primary legal issues. First, whether the guilty verdicts on two counts of the first indictment, which involved acts of indecency and homosexual intercourse, were indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory given that the Crown's case heavily relied on the testimony of a single complainant. Second, whether the conviction on the second indictment, involving an indecent assault, should be set aside as a result of the appellant's plea of guilty being influenced by imprudent and inappropriate advice from his legal representatives.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously examined the evidence and the arguments put forth by both parties. It found that the jury's verdicts on the first indictment were indeed safe and satisfactory, as there was sufficient evidence to support the appellant's guilt on those counts. However, regarding the second indictment, the court determined that the conviction should be set aside due to the appellant's plea being influenced by inappropriate advice. The court concluded that the advice provided to the appellant was indeed imprudent and had materially affected his decision to plead guilty, thereby warranting the setting aside of the conviction.

The court ordered that the convictions on the first indictment should stand, while the conviction on the second indictment should be quashed. The appellant was thus acquitted of the second charge, but remained convicted on the other counts as determined by the jury.

Orders