Legal Research
Cases
R v Zurita

R v Zurita

Case [2002] NSWCCA 22 13 February 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Zurita [2002] NSWCCA 22

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60638/01

HEARING DATE(S): 13/02/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Victor Augusto Zurita

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 27, 29; Levine J at 28; Howie J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0194

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Phegan DCJ

COUNSEL : W.G.Dawe QC - Crown
P.R. Boulten - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - Crown
Hardinlaw - Appellant

CATCHWORDS: Evidence - Admissibility and relevance - Trial judge refusing to allow accused to raise character in part - whether it gave rise to miscarriage of justice.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - ss 61J(1), 556A
Evidence Act 1995 - ss 108(3), 110
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 6

CASES CITED:
R v PKS (CCANSW, 1 October 1998)
Mraz v The Queen (1995) 93 CLR 493
Wilde v The Queen (1998) 164 CLR 365

DECISION: Appeal allowed, verdict and sentence quashed and a re-trial ordered.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60638/01

HODGSON JA
LEVINE J
HOWIE J
WEDNESDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2002

REGINA v VICTOR AUGUSTO ZURITA

JUDGMENT

1 HOWIE J: The appellant was convicted after trial on a charge of aggravated sexual assault contrary to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. As a consequence of the jury’s verdict, on 15 November 2001 Judge Phegan sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for 12 months with a non-parole period of 9 months. There is an appeal against that conviction but no application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appellant was granted bail by the Supreme Court pending the hearing of the appeal on 29 November 2001.

2 The facts can be briefly stated. The complainant was the stepdaughter of the appellant and was aged 12 years at the time of the alleged offence. The fact that she was under the age of 16 years was the matter of aggravation pleaded in the charge. The Crown case was that on 18 June 1997, the complainant, the appellant, the complainant’s mother, her younger brother and her grandmother, had driven to the Blue Mountains in the family motor vehicle. The purpose of the trip was so that the mother and grandmother could consult with a solicitor. While they were inside the solicitor’s home, the two children and the appellant remained in the vehicle, which was parked outside the premises.

3 The complainant alleged that, while her brother was asleep and when she was on the verge of falling asleep, the appellant placed his hand inside her panties and penetrated her vagina with his fingers. The complainant estimated that he left his fingers there for “a couple of minutes”. The complainant then sat up and the appellant withdrew his hand. The complainant left the vehicle and went inside the solicitor’s home asking to use the toilet. She stayed inside the premises with her mother and grandmother but made no complaint concerning the appellant’s conduct. A short time later the family returned home together.

4 Some…

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 Zurita

Details

AGLC: R v Zurita [2002] NSWCCA 22
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 22
Decision Date: 13 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Zurita, the High Court of Australia was presented with an appeal from the accused against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence and the impact of the trial judge's refusal to allow the accused to raise his good character in part. The appellant argued that the exclusion of this specific evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles governing the admissibility of character evidence and the trial judge's discretion in this matter. The central question was whether the trial judge's decision to prevent the accused from presenting a specific aspect of his good character constituted a breach of the rules of evidence that led to a miscarriage of justice. The court had to determine whether the exclusion of this evidence was an error that affected the fairness of the trial.

The court reasoned that the trial judge's discretion in controlling the admissibility of character evidence must be exercised judiciously to ensure a fair trial. However, the court found that the trial judge's decision in this case did not rise to the level of a miscarriage of justice. The court held that while the accused's right to present a complete picture of his character is important, the trial judge's discretion to limit the scope of character evidence is not without bounds. In this instance, the court determined that the exclusion of the specific aspect of the accused's good character did not result in such a significant unfairness as to warrant a new trial.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The court's decision affirmed the trial judge's discretion in managing the presentation of character evidence and clarified the circumstances under which such discretion might result in a miscarriage of justice.

Orders