R v Wilson - [2001] NSWCCA 298

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Sean Adrian Wilson [2001] NSWCCA 298

FILE NUMBER(S):
60845/00

HEARING DATE(S): 24 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 10/08/2001

PARTIES:
Regina
Sean Adrian Wilson

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J Hulme J Newman AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 98/51/0229

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Judge Ducker

COUNSEL:
R. A. Hulme - Crown
W. G. Flynn - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S. E. O'Connor - Crown
Marsdens Solicitors - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

DECISION:
Appeal against conviction dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60845/00

SULLY J
HULME J
NEWMAN AJ

Friday 10 August 2001

REGINA v Sean Adrian WILSON

JUDGMENT

SULLY J: Mr. Sean Adrian Wilson stood trial in the District Court in May 2000. He was charged with having attempted to incite a child to participate in an act of prostitution, a contravention of section 91D(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW. The trial was conducted by his Honour Judge Ducker sitting alone pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 NSW. His Honour found the appellant guilty as charged and convicted him accordingly. The appellant appeals against that conviction. Notice was given of an application for leave to appeal against sentence; but that application was abandoned at the hearing of the appeal against conviction.
The Crown case at trial was that on 12 July 1998, and at a time somewhere between 5 p.m and 6 p.m, the 14 year old complainant had been riding his bicycle north in Cherry Street, Ballina. The complainant was riding on the footpath and in the vicinity of a particular intersection. A car drew up beside him, and the driver of the car beckoned him over. The complainant approached close to the near-side of the vehicle and had a conversation with the driver of the vehicle. The conversation took place through the open window of the near-side door, the driver of the vehicle leaning across the passenger’s seat and speaking directly to the complainant while looking at him. The complainant was expecting to be asked for directions. What in fact he was asked by the driver was whether he would be interested in earing some easy money by performing an act of fellatio upon the driver. The complainant said in evidence that it took him a short time to grasp what it was that was being suggested to him; but that as soon as he had “clued on” he rejected the suggestion, returning thereupon immediately to his home and reporting the incident, first to his brother and then to his father.
Almost at once the complainant, in company with his father and brother, got into the father’s motor vehicle and went in search of the person who had accosted the complainant. The complainant’s father drove, the complainant sat beside him in the front of the vehicle; and the complainant’s brother sat in the rear of the vehicle. The complainant…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Wilson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NSWCCA 298
Decision Date: 10 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wilson involved a defendant who was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 59 of the Crimes Act 1900. The defendant appealed against the conviction and sentence on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence and in his instructions to the jury. The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that was not relevant to the offence charged, and whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury were adequate. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

The court held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence, as it was relevant to the defendant's state of mind and the circumstances of the offence. The court also found that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were adequate, and that the sentence imposed was not excessive. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.

The court made no further orders. The conviction and sentence of the defendant remained in place, and the defendant was required to serve the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that evidence is relevant to the offence charged, and of the need for trial judges to provide adequate instructions to juries.

Orders