R v WJT - [2001] NSWCCA 405

CITATION: R v WJT [2001] NSWCCA 405

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60024/00

HEARING DATE(S): 1/5/2001
4/5/2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 October 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
WJT

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Sully J at 2; Dowd J at 65

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0933

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Morgan DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr W Washington- Appellant
Mr GE Smith- Crown

SOLICITORS: Mr M Rumore- Appellant
Mr SE O'Connor- Crown

CATCHWORDS: Appeal against conviction - Buggery - Sexual intercourse with child between 10 years and 16 years - Whether trial judge erred in not staying indictment - Whether delay, uncertainty and vagueness in the allegations of the complainant - Admissibility of complaint evidence - Directions to jury - Relationship evidence - Section 409B Crimes Act - Whether trial judge erred in not discharging jury after inadmissible evidence led on the basis that the jury would not have heard it - Whether evidence of complainant’s and mother’s financial circumstances should have been allowed - Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75.
Jago v The District Court of New South Wales & Ors (1989) 168 CLR 23.
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.
R v AH (1997) 98 A Crim R 71.
R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131.
R v MM (2000) 112 A Crim R 519.
R v McGarvey (1987) 10 NSWLR 632.
Re Cooney (1987) 31 A Crim R 256.

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60024/00

MASON P

SULLY J

DOWD J

8 October 2001

Regina v WJT

JUDGMENT

: I agree with Sully J.

2 SULLY J: The appellant, WJT, stood trial in September 1999 in the District Court at Campbelltown before her Honour Judge Morgan and a jury. The appellant was so presented for trial upon an indictment containing two counts. The first count charged that between 29 October 1982 and 31 December 1983 at Bondi Junction, he committed with KT the crime of buggery. KT was the appellant’s natural daughter. The second count charged that between 24 April 1986 and 31 January 1987, at Kogarah, the appellant had sexual intercourse with KT, she then being a child between the ages of 10 years and 16 years, namely 14 years, and then being under the authority of the appellant. On 21 September 1999, the jury returned verdicts finding the appellant guilty as charged upon both counts. The appellant was sentenced, thereafter, to terms of imprisonment; but no leave is now sought to appeal against those sentences, and nothing more need be said about them. It is the two convictions, only, that are now challenged by the appellant.

3 The complainant gave at trial the following evidence concerning the incident giving rise to count 1 in the indictment:

“There was a time he came into the bathroom and made me stand up against the toilet,…

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 WJT

Details

AGLC: R v WJT [2001] NSWCCA 405
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 405
Decision Date: 8 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia, involving the respondent, WJT, who was found guilty of buggery of a child between the ages of 10 and 16. The appellant contested the conviction, arguing several grounds for appeal, including whether the trial judge erred in not staying the indictment due to the delay, uncertainty, and vagueness in the allegations made by the complainant. Additionally, the appellant questioned the admissibility of the complainant's evidence and the trial judge's directions to the jury. The respondent's financial circumstances and those of the complainant's mother were also in contention, along with the trial judge's decision not to discharge the jury after inadmissible evidence was presented, based on the assumption that the jury would not have heard it.

The court was required to determine if the trial judge's failure to stay the indictment was a misdirection. The court also had to consider whether the delay, uncertainty, and vagueness in the complainant's allegations rendered them inadmissible. Furthermore, the court examined the admissibility of the evidence and the directions given to the jury, along with the appropriateness of the evidence regarding the financial circumstances of the complainant and her mother. The court also assessed whether the evidence led by the prosecution was inadmissible and whether the trial judge erred in not discharging the jury.

In its decision, the court found that the trial judge did not err in not staying the indictment. The delay, uncertainty, and vagueness in the complainant's allegations did not render them inadmissible, as the jury was adequately directed on the importance of assessing the evidence's reliability. The court held that the evidence was admissible, and the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate. The evidence of the financial circumstances of the complainant and her mother was deemed inadmissible, but the court concluded that it did not affect the safety and satisfaction of the verdict. The trial judge did not err in not discharging the jury after inadmissible evidence was presented, as it was likely that the jury did not hear it.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders