Legal Research
Cases
Radburn (a pseudonym) v The King

Radburn (a pseudonym) v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 125 18 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Radburn (a pseudonym) v R [2025] NSWCCA 125
Hearing dates: 2 July 2025; further submissions 6 and 11 August 2025
Decision date: 18 August 2025
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Free JA at [138];
N Adams J at [139].
Decision:
1. Refuse leave to appeal on proposed grounds 1, 2 and 3.
2. Grant leave to appeal on grounds 4 and 5.
3. Dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeal against conviction — jury returned guilty verdict of sexual intercourse with child under the age of 10 contrary to Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 66A — whether verdict unreasonable — whether trial judge erred in not giving “full” character direction — whether failure to seek full character direction a deliberate forensic decision reflecting agreement that if applicant’s character evidence limited to absence of criminal convictions, no character evidence in reply would be presented — whether other errors in directions to jury — appeal dismissed
CRIME — appeal against sentence — whether sentence manifestly excessive — appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 66A, 66DA, 578A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) r 4.15

Cases Cited:
Aravena v R [2015] NSWCCA 288
Barwick v R [2023] NSWCCA 139
BQ v The King [2024] HCA 29
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
FX v R; GX v R [2020] NSWCCA 189; 290 A Crim R 31
Germakian v R (2007) 70 NSWLR 467; [2007] NSWCCA 373
Greenhalgh v R [2017] NSWCCA 94
Guo v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 40
JV v R [2017] NSWCCA 49
Kanbut v R [2022] NSWCCA 259
Lang v The Queen (2023) 278 CLR 323; [2023] HCA 29
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Button; R v Griffen (2002) 54 NSWLR 455; [2002] NSWCCA 159
R v Jovanovic (1997) 42 NSWLR 520
R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v RJC (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 18 August 1998, unrep)
R v ZT [2025] HCA 9; 99 ALJR 676
Sanchez v R [2009] NSWCCA 171; 196 A Crim R 472
Simic v The Queen (1980) 144 CLR 319; [1980] HCA 25
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Radburn (a pseudonym) (Applicant)
The King (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Stratton SC (Applicant)
C Curtis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Bell Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/00220683
Publication restriction: Section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) forbids the publication of any matter which identifies the complainant
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

23 October 2023; 4 April…

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 Radburn (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Radburn (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] NSWCCA 125
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 125
Decision Date: 18 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Radburn v The King, the appellant, Radburn, challenged both his conviction and sentence following a guilty verdict for sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10. The conviction and subsequent sentence were imposed by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Radburn sought to overturn his conviction on the grounds that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge had failed to provide a "full" character direction to the jury. He also contended that the trial judge's failure to seek a full character direction was a deliberate decision, reflecting an agreement that if Radburn's character evidence was limited to his absence of criminal convictions, no character evidence in reply would be presented. Furthermore, Radburn argued that there were other errors in the directions given to the jury. In relation to the sentence, Radburn claimed it was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable, examining the evidence presented and the trial judge's directions to the jury. The court also evaluated the argument that the trial judge's failure to seek a full character direction was a deliberate choice, and whether this constituted a significant error. Additionally, the court scrutinised whether there were any other errors in the jury directions that warranted overturning the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court assessed whether it was manifestly excessive, taking into account the severity of the crime and the principles of sentencing.

The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, given the evidence presented. It determined that the trial judge's failure to seek a full character direction was not a deliberate decision and did not constitute a significant error. The court also concluded that there were no other errors in the jury directions that would necessitate overturning the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court held that it was not manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offence and the principles of sentencing.

As a result of these findings, the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence was dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales were upheld.

Orders