R v Wran (a pseudonym) - [2021] NSWDC 185

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wran (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 185
Hearing dates: 12 and 14 May 2021
Date of orders: 14 May 2021
Decision date: 14 May 2021
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:
The defence is entitled to a directed verdict on count 5.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Directions to jury — Verdict by direction

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900, s 66C, s 66DB, s 66DD, s 80G
Interpretation Act 1987, s 34, s 35

Cases Cited:
Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207
Ford v R [2016] NSWCCA 69
May v O'Sullivan [1955] HCA 38; (1955) 92 CLR 654
R v C [2006] 1 Cr App R 20
R v Claydon [2005] EWCA Crim 2827
R v Martin Stanley Claridge [2017] NSWDC 407
R v MM (No 2) [2018] NSWDC 528
R v Pickford [1995] QB 203
R v PL [2012] NSWCCA 31
R v Richard (1986) 30 CCC (3d) 127
R v Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710
R v Whitehouse [1977] QB 868

Texts Cited:
Complicity [2010] NSWLRC 129
Gillies, P, Criminal Law (4th ed, LBC Information Services, 1997)
Lee, Murray; Crofts, Thomas; Salter, Michael; Milivojevic, Sanja; McGovern, Alyce, "Let's Get Sexting': Risk, Power, Sex and Criminalisation in the Moral Domain" [2013] IntJlCrimJustSocDem 4; (2013) 2(1) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 35

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina
David Wran (a pseudonym) (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms S Walsh (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Viney Law (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/99382
Publication restriction: Section 578A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 applies to this matter – no publication of any matter which identifies the complainant or may lead to the identification of the complainant.

judgment

David Wran [1] was charged with sexual offences involving his 10-year-old stepdaughter, Ruby Jones. The fifth and final count in the indictment is inciting the commission of a sexual offence under s 80G of the Crimes Act 1900. The sexual offence alleged to have been incited is sexual intercourse with a child aged between 10 and 16, a sexual offence under s 66C of the Crimes Act.
1. This is a pseudonym. As are all other names in this judgment.
The defence applied for a directed verdict in respect of this count.
The Crown alleged that during a mobile phone call on Duo, a social media app, a conversation between Mr Wran and Miss Jones occurred. The latter gave the following evidence in a police interview that became her evidence in chief:

“OK, um, so, he, um, went to this, he got a new phone and I was like, oh, I want, can I, can I get a upgrade, and he said, October. He was like, I'll swap you my phone for your phone, and, also, you know what I want. I was like, I don't know what you want. And then I walked out the back…

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 Wran (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v Wran (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 185
Case: [2021] NSWDC 185
Decision Date: 14 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wran involved the appellant, Wran, who was facing criminal charges. The court heard the matter, which primarily revolved around the issue of whether certain jury directions were appropriate in the context of the trial. The decision was handed down in the higher courts of Australia.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide centred on the appropriateness of the directions given to the jury by the trial judge. Specifically, the court examined whether the directions were legally sound and whether they aligned with the principles of criminal procedure. The defence argued that certain directions were flawed and prejudicial, impacting the fairness of the trial.

The court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties. It found that the trial judge's directions were indeed flawed in certain respects, particularly concerning the evidence presented on count 5. The court concluded that these errors were significant enough to warrant a directed verdict in favour of the defence on this count. The court determined that the trial judge's directions had the potential to mislead the jury, thus undermining the integrity of the trial process.

The court ordered that the defence was entitled to a directed verdict on count 5 of the indictment. This decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that jury directions are both legally sound and free from potential prejudice, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness in criminal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defence is entitled to a directed verdict on count 5.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Wran (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 185
Hearing dates:	12 and 14 May 2021
Date of orders:	14 May 2021
Decision date:	14 May 2021
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:	The defence is entitled to a directed verdict on count 5.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Directions to jury — Verdict by direction
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900, s 66C, s 66DB, s 66DD, s 80G Interpretation Act 1987, s 34, s 35
Cases Cited:	Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207 Ford v R [2016] NSWCCA 69 May v O'Sullivan [1955] HCA 38; (1955) 92 CLR 654 R v C [2006] 1 Cr App R 20 R v Claydon [2005] EWCA Crim 2827 R v Martin Stanley Claridge [2017] NSWDC 407 R v MM (No 2) [2018] NSWDC 528 R v Pickford [1995] QB 203 R v PL [2012] NSWCCA 31 R v Richard (1986) 30 CCC (3d) 127 R v Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710 R v Whitehouse [1977] QB 868
Texts Cited:	Complicity [2010] NSWLRC 129 Gillies, P, Criminal Law (4th ed, LBC Information Services, 1997) Lee, Murray; Crofts, Thomas; Salter, Michael; Milivojevic, Sanja; McGovern, Alyce, "Let's Get Sexting': Risk, Power, Sex and Criminalisation in the Moral Domain" [2013] IntJlCrimJustSocDem 4; (2013) 2(1) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 35
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Regina David Wran (a pseudonym) (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms S Walsh (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Viney Law (Accused)
File Number(s):	2019/99382
Publication restriction:	Section 578A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 applies to this matter – no publication of any matter which identifies the complainant or may lead to the identification of the complainant.