Regina v AG - Regina v RJM - [2000] NSWCCA 86

CITATION: Regina v AG - Regina v RJM [2000] NSWCCA 86

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60406/99; 60407/99

HEARING DATE(S): 21 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
31 March 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA (Respondent) v AG (Appellant)
REGINA (Respondent) v RJM (Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Ireland J at 2; Simpson J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/0154

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Grogan DCJ

COUNSEL : D C Frearson - Crown Respondent
P J O'Donnell - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown Respondent
Matthews Folbigg - Applicant

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
R v M (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Prasad (1980) 2 A Crim R 45
Jones v R (1997) 191 CLR 439

DECISION: Each appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60406/99

60407/99
SPIGELMAN CJ
IRELAND J

SIMPSON J

Friday 31 March 2000

REGINA v A G
REGINA v R J M

JUDGMENT
1    SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Simpson J.
2    IRELAND J: I agree with Simpson J for the reasons given by her Honour.

SIMPSON J :

3    On 18 June 1999 the appellants, RM and AG, were convicted after a nine day trial by jury of certain sexual offences, the victim of each of which was alleged to be CM (to whom I will refer as C). Each appeals against the convictions.
4 The trial commenced on 7 June 1999. RM was indicted on six counts, four of which were assault with intent to commit buggery, brought under s 80 of the Crimes Act 1900, and two of indecent assault, brought under s 81 of the Crimes Act. AG was indicted on four counts, three of which were of assault with intent to commit buggery, and one was of indecent assault. All offences were alleged to have been committed between 1 November 1978 and 31 March 1979. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on each count against AG, and on three of the counts against RM. They acquitted RM on one count and were unable to agree, and were subsequently discharged, in respect of two counts. The indictment and verdicts may be summarised as follows:

COUNT
1 RM assaulted C with intent to commit buggery:
jury unable to agree, discharged

2 AG assaulted C with intent to commit buggery:
verdict of guilty

3 AG indecently assaulted C:
verdict of guilty

4 RM indecently assaulted C:
verdict of guilty

5 RM assaulted C with intent to commit buggery:
jury unable to agree, discharged

6 RM assaulted C with intent to commit buggery:
verdict of guilty

7 AG assaulted C with intent to commit buggery:
verdict of guilty

8 RM indecently assaulted C:
verdict of not guilty

9 RM assaulted C with intent to commit buggery:
verdict of guilty
10 AG assaulted C with intent to commit buggery:
verdict of guilty

5    Except for that charged in count 5, each offence was alleged to have been committed at Freemans Reach. The offence…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v AG - Regina v RJM and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWCCA 86
Decision Date: 31 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v AG and Regina v RJM, which was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales, involved two appellants, AG and RM, who were convicted of multiple counts of sexual offences against a victim identified as C. AG was convicted on four counts, including assault with intent to commit buggery and indecent assault, while RM was convicted on three counts, including indecent assault and assault with intent to commit buggery. The appellants challenged the convictions on the basis that the verdicts could not be sustained due to the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence, citing the High Court decision in R v M. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts beyond reasonable doubt. The Court examined the evidence provided by C, who was the sole witness for the Crown, and noted discrepancies in his accounts given at different times. However, the Court found that these discrepancies did not undermine the overall reliability of C's testimony. The Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts and that the appellants' arguments did not give rise to a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Consequently, the Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the convictions.

Orders