Regina v White - [1999] NSWCCA 336

CITATION: Regina -v- White [1999] NSWCCA 336

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60143/98

HEARING DATE(S): 26 May, 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 October 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Maxwell John White

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Ireland J at 2; Kirby J at 81

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/61/0182
97/61/0186

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL: P M Strickland - Appellant
C K Maxwell QC - Crown

SOLICITORS: T A Murphy - Appellant
C K Smith - Crown

CATCHWORDS: Conviction for sexual offences against 3 complainants (2 complainants under 16 yrs; 1 complainant just 16 years). Charges tried jointly - evidence admitted under S 98 of the Evidence Act 1995. The coincidence rule - permissible use of evidence of "related events" - use of stupefying drugs and other similar facts. No need for further direction as to impermissible use of evidence where S 97 considerations do not arise in the trial. Sentence - additional term of less than S 5(2) statutory ratio - within judge's discretion for 64 year old offender.

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act, 1900 - S409B
Evidence Act, 1995 - Ss 97, 98;
Sentencing Act, 1989 - S 5(2);
Criminal Appeal Act, 1912 - S 6.

CASES CITED:
R -v- AH (1997) 42 NSWLR 702 @ 708
B -v- The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599 @ 610
Graham -v- The Queen (1998) 72 ALR 1491
R -v- GDR (1994) 35 NSWLR 376

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60143/98
WOOD CJ at CL
IRELAND J
KIRBY J
Friday, 29 October, 1999

REGINA -v- Maxwell John WHITE
JUDGMENT

1    WOOD J: I agree with the orders proposed by Ireland J for the reasons given by his Honour.
**********
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60143/98
WOOD CJ at CL
IRELAND J
KIRBY J
Friday, 29 October, 1999

REGINA -v- Maxwell John WHITE
JUDGMENT

2    IRELAND J: The appellant, Maxwell John White, stood trial on 29 January, 1998 at the Broken Hill District Court, before his Honour Judge Gibson QC and a jury of twelve, facing charges regarding eight separate offences against three different complainants. The trial judge directed that the trials of the appellant in relation to the three complainants be joined together. No complaint is made about that ruling.
3    Counts 1 to 6 in the indictment relate to the complainant JKN and are the following:-

(1) On or about 21 November 1996 at Wagga Wagga did unlawfully administer a stupefying drug with intent to enable himself to commit an indictable offence, to wit sexual intercourse with JKN, a girl under the age of sixteen years, namely thirteen years.

In the alternative, that on the same date and at the same place did unlawfully administer a stupefying drug with intent to enable himself to commit an indictable offence, to wit assault, and at the time of such assault, to commit an act of indecency upon JKN.

Both of…

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 White

Details

AGLC: Regina v White [1999] NSWCCA 336
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 336
Decision Date: 29 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v White, the accused faced charges related to sexual offences against three complainants, two of whom were under the age of 16 at the time of the offences, and one who was just 16 years old. The charges were tried jointly, and the evidence was admitted under section 98 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court had to consider the admissibility of evidence of related events, including the use of stupefying drugs and similar facts, in the context of the coincidence rule. The court also had to determine if further directions were necessary regarding the impermissible use of such evidence, given that the considerations under section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 did not arise during the trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of related events was admissible under section 98, and if so, whether it could be used to prove the coincidence rule. The court needed to assess whether the evidence of stupefying drugs and other similar facts was relevant and necessary to establish the accused's propensity to commit the sexual offences. Furthermore, the court had to consider if additional directions were necessary under section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995, despite the absence of such considerations during the trial.

The court held that the evidence of related events was admissible under section 98 of the Evidence Act 1995, and it could be used to establish the coincidence rule. The judge found that the evidence of stupefying drugs and other similar facts was relevant and necessary to prove the accused's propensity to commit the sexual offences against the complainants. The court also determined that no further directions were necessary regarding the impermissible use of evidence, as the considerations under section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 did not arise in the trial. Regarding the sentence, the judge imposed an additional term of imprisonment for the 64-year-old offender, which was within the judge's discretion.

The court upheld the conviction and imposed a sentence on the accused. The judge found that the evidence of related events was admissible and relevant, and the coincidence rule was applicable. The court also determined that no further directions were necessary regarding the impermissible use of evidence. The sentence imposed was within the judge's discretion, considering the offender's age and the nature of the offences.

Orders