Reed v R

Case [2006] NSWCCA 314 10 October 2006

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Peter John REED v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 314

FILE NUMBER(S):
2006/958

HEARING DATE(S): 1 September 2006

DECISION DATE: 10/10/2006

PARTIES:
Peter John Reed (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ McClellan CJ at CL Sully J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/61/0008

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Shadbolt DCJ

COUNSEL:
A. Francis (Appellant)
P.G. Ingram (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
J. Pearson, Solicitor for the Legal Aid Commission
S. Kavanagh, Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Powers and duties of prosecution – Delay in disclosure to defence of evidence in possession of Crown.
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Whether a miscarriage of justice – Material withheld not of “sufficient relevance”.
EVIDENCE – Evidentiary Matters Relating to Witnesses and Accused – Cross-examination of sexual assault complainants – Significance of surrounding detail to reliability of memory of assault.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s6(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s294(2)

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2006/958
SPIGELMAN CJ
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SULLY J
Tuesday 10 October 2006

Peter John REED v REGINA

Judgment

SPIGELMAN CJ: The Appellant was convicted following a jury trial before Shadbolt DCJ of one count of sexual intercourse with a person over the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, being a person under the authority of the Appellant. This is an offence under s66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, as it then was.
The complainant (LK), who was 10 at the time of the offence and 14 at the time of the trial, gave evidence, which was clearly accepted by the jury, that the Appellant had committed digital penetration upon her. The circumstances of the offence were that she was friendly with the Appellant’s daughter (SF) and was sleeping over at her house. At the time the Appellant was separated from her friend’s mother (TF), but was present on the particular evening looking after the two girls.
The Appellant was charged with other offences of this character. With respect to a complainant MH, the half sister of SF, there were four trials and he was ultimately acquitted. Other proceedings involving a number of complainants were eventually the subject of a no bill.
Ground 1 was not pressed. There are three remaining grounds of appeal as follows:
Ground 2 – The trial miscarried as a consequence of the trial judge’s directions concerning the use that could be made of witness statements.
Ground 3 – The trial miscarried on account of the failure of the prosecution to disclose relevant material.
Ground 4 – The trial miscarried as a result of the unbalanced directions of the trial judge concerning the delay in complaint.
Ground 2 is concerned with the directions his Honour gave with respect to two questions asked by the jury shortly after they retired. Those questions were:
“Do we have access to witness statements…

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 Reed v R

Details

AGLC: Reed v R [2006] NSWCCA 314
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 314
Decision Date: 10 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Reed v R, the appellant, Reed, was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman, and the High Court of Australia heard an appeal against that conviction. The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to a delay in the disclosure of evidence by the prosecution, specifically whether the withheld material was of sufficient relevance. Additionally, the court considered the significance of surrounding details to the reliability of the memory of the assault when cross-examining sexual assault complainants.

The court found that the delay in the disclosure of evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the withheld material was not of sufficient relevance to the issues in the case. The court noted that the trial judge had been meticulous in considering the relevance of the evidence and had made findings that the evidence was not likely to have affected the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, the court emphasised the importance of surrounding details in assessing the reliability of the memory of sexual assault complainants during cross-examination. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately considered the surrounding details and had not erred in their assessment of the reliability of the complainant's memory.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding Reed's conviction. The court found that there had been no miscarriage of justice and that the trial judge had correctly considered the relevance of the withheld evidence and the reliability of the complainant's memory. The court's decision highlights the importance of a thorough and careful consideration of evidence and the reliability of witnesses in sexual assault cases.

Orders