Regina v Byrnes - [2000] NSWCCA 304

CITATION: REGINA v BYRNES [2000] NSWCCA 304

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60728 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): 13 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 August 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v BARRY FRANCIS BYRNES

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; James J at 71; Sperling J at 72

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/51/0189

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Job DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: R D Cogswell SC
Appellant: S R Norrish QC

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Appellant: Dooley & Associates

CATCHWORDS: Sexual assault - adequate warning as to reliability of complainant’s evidence - findings of fact on which the judge relied - verdicts reasonable - not incumbent upon trial judge to detail each and every error of witness - no error in determining that appellant’s ERISP answers were "not really denials" - Longman warning - judicial direction under s405B Crimes Act - ND.

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60728/99
DC 98/51/0189
MASON P
JAMES J
SPERLING J
Tuesday 15 August 2000

REGINA v Barry Francis BYRNES
JUDGMENT

1 MASON P: On 1 November 1999 the appellant was indicted in the District Court on seven charges of sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before His Honour Judge Job sitting without a jury. On 3 November 1999 he was found guilty on all charges. Sentences were imposed on 15 December 1999. 2 This appeal is against conviction. 3 The complainant was born in 1980. Her mother and the appellant started a relationship when the complainant was four. The family moved into the appellant's house where the complainant shared a bedroom with her sister who was 2 years younger than her. The appellant married the complainant's mother and they had a son, born in 1988. The first incident charged occurred in 1985 when the complainant was in kindergarten and the last incident charged occurred when she was 13. 4 In 1994 the complainant was interviewed by officers of the Department of Community Services (DOCS). She told them that her stepfather was not interfering with her. In her evidence, she said that this was a lie as the result of fear. She said that the appellant had threatened to shoot her if she told the DOCS officers anything. 5 According to the complainant, in early 1997 she told her mother that the appellant had sexually abused her. This evidence was disputed, as was her evidence that the appellant had tearfully admitted the abuse. It was common ground that the appellant was given a caravan shortly after this conversation, but hotly disputed whether this was an agreed “payoff” for the complainant’s silence. 6 In March 1998 the complainant went to the police and make the first of two statements that led to the appellant's arrest in July of that year. 7 The appellant participated in an ERISP. Some of his answers were interpreted by the learned trial judge as being “not really denials” and this conclusion is the subject of the…

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 Regina v Byrnes

Details

AGLC: Regina v Byrnes [2000] NSWCCA 304
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 304
Decision Date: 15 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Byrnes is a case in which the appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sought to appeal on various grounds, including the adequacy of the warning provided by the trial judge regarding the reliability of the complainant's evidence, and whether the verdicts were reasonable. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the trial judge did not provide an adequate warning about the reliability of the complainant's evidence, which is crucial under section 405B of the Crimes Act. The appellant also contested the trial judge's findings of fact and whether the verdicts were reasonable.

The court was required to determine if the trial judge provided an adequate warning regarding the reliability of the complainant's evidence. It was also necessary to assess whether the trial judge erred in his findings of fact, and whether the verdicts were reasonable. The court had to consider whether the trial judge was required to detail each and every error of the witness and whether there was an error in determining that the appellant's ERISP answers were "not really denials." Additionally, the court needed to review the Longman warning and the judicial direction under section 405B of the Crimes Act.

The court found that the trial judge provided an adequate warning about the reliability of the complainant's evidence, as required by section 405B of the Crimes Act. The court held that it was not incumbent upon the trial judge to detail each and every error of the witness. The court also found that the trial judge's determination that the appellant's ERISP answers were "not really denials" was not erroneous. The court further held that there was no error in the Longman warning or the judicial direction under section 405B of the Crimes Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the verdicts were upheld as reasonable.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the verdicts of the trial judge were upheld. The appellant's convictions for sexual assault were affirmed, and no further action was taken regarding the appellant's claims.

Orders