REGINA v Wayne Baldwin - [2004] NSWCCA 21

CITATION: REGINA v Wayne BALDWIN [2004] NSWCCA 21

HEARING DATE(S): 18/2/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; O'Keefe J at 2; Bell J at 3

DECISION: 1. Allow the appeal; 2. Quash the convictions and sentences imposed in the District Court; 3. In relation to count 17 direct judgment and verdict of acquittal; 4. Direct a new trial with respect to the balance of the indictment

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: L v Johnson and the DPP [2003] NSWSC 1246
BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275
Maric v R (1978) 52 ALJR 631
R v Anderson (1991) 53 A Crim R 421
R v ATM [2000] NSWCCA 475
R v Dixon [2001] NSWCCA 39
R v Goldburg, Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 23 February 1993
R v RNS [1999] NSWCCA 122
R v Tolmie, Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 7 December 1994
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509

PARTIES :
Wayne BALDWIN (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60332/03

COUNSEL: M Thangaraj (Appellant)
E Wilkins (Crown)

SOLICITORS: C Abbott (Appellant)
CK Smith (Crown)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/11/0491

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Shillington DCJ

60332/03

LEVINE J
O’KEEFE J
BELL J
22 March 2004

REGINA v Wayne BALDWIN

Judgment

1 LEVINE J: I agree with Bell J.

2 O’KEEFE J: I agree with Bell J.

3 BELL J: On 5 August 2002 the appellant was arraigned upon an indictment before his Honour Judge Shillington in the District Court (the Judge). The indictment contained twenty-six counts charging him with the commission of sexual assaults and common assaults against the same complainant, JL, in the period between 1 October 1981 and 2 March 1984. The appellant entered pleas of not guilty to each count and stood trial.

4 The appellant was acquitted by direction of five of the counts at the close of the evidence. On 12 August 2002 the jury returned verdicts of guilty with respect to each of the remaining twenty-one counts.

5 On 5 September 2002 the Judge sentenced the appellant to terms of imprisonment that in the aggregate amounted to twenty years with an effective non-parole period of fifteen years.

6 This is an appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences that were imposed.

7 It was the Crown case that JL had been introduced to the appellant when he was aged fifteen years. JL was in the care of the Department of Community Services at the time and appears not to have had a permanent residence. He was taken by his friend to the appellant’s flat in Kings Cross. There he consumed a quantity of alcohol and passed out. He woke to find that he was being anally penetrated by the appellant. Within a matter of weeks of their first meeting, JL came to live with the appellant and to believe that the appellant had been…

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 Wayne Baldwin

Details

AGLC: REGINA v Wayne Baldwin [2004] NSWCCA 21
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 21
Decision Date: 22 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Wayne Baldwin is an appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed. The appellant was convicted on twenty-one counts of sexual and common assault against the same complainant. The primary legal issues were whether the trial was an abuse of process due to the lengthy delay and the loss of documents, and whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the use of relationship evidence and uncharged acts. The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial was not an abuse of process and that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the use of uncharged acts led to a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and sentences, directed judgment and verdict of acquittal on count 17, and ordered a new trial for the remaining counts.

Orders