RH v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 71 9 May 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: RH v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCCA 71

Hearing Date(s): 12 December 2013

Decision Date: 09 May 2014

Before: Ward JA at [1];
Harrison J at [316];
RA Hulme J at [317]

Decision:
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - propensity, tendency and co-incidence - admissibility and relevance - tendency and co-incidence evidence under uniform evidence law - evidence admitted of prior guilty plea and admissions of aggravated indecent assault in trial of other indecent assault charges where accused pleading not guilty

CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - propensity, tendency and co-incidence - admissibility and relevance - tendency and co-incidence evidence under uniform evidence law -whether risk of contamination or concoction of evidence between complainants

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal and new trial - whether verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited: BP v R; R v BP [2010] NSWCCA 303
DJV v R [2008] NSWCA 272; (2008) 200 A Crim R 206
Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v McGregor (1928) 41 CLR 254
Hoch v The Queen [1998] HCA 50;(1988) 165 CLR 292
HML v R [2008] HCA 16; (2008) 235 CLR 334
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
Pfennig v R [1995] HCA 7; (1995) 182 CLR 461
R v AH (1997) 42 NSWLR 702; (1997) 98 A Crim R 71
R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510
R v Dann [2000] NSWCCA 185
R v Fung [2002] NSWCCA 479; 136 A Crim R 95
R v PWD [2010] NSWCCA 209; (2010) 205 A Crim R 75
R v SK; SK v R [2011] NSWCCA 292
R v Thomas Douglas Watkins [2005] NSWCCA 164
Simpson v Robinson (1848) 12 QB 511; 116 ER 959
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
TWL v R [2012] NSWCCA 57

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: RH (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
R Steward (Appellant)
H Wilson SC (Respondent)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Prime Lawyers (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2010/022334

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal: District Court

- Before: Lakatos DCJ

- Date of Decision: 19 December 2012

- Court File Number(s): 2010/00022334

Publication Restriction: Prohibition on publication of any matter identifying or likely to lead to identification of complainants pursuant to s 578A Crimes Act 1900

JUDGMENT

WARD JA: This is an appeal against the appellant's conviction for a number of child sexual assault offences. The offences were committed against two children that he and his wife had first fostered and then adopted. To preserve the anonymity of the complainants, I have referred to each of them (and to others by reference to whom their identity might be revealed) by use of pseudonyms.
Six of the seven counts on…

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 RH v R

Details

AGLC: RH v R [2014] NSWCCA 71
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 71
Decision Date: 09 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of RH v R involved an appeal against conviction by the respondent, RH, who was found guilty of multiple indecent assault charges. The trial judge admitted evidence of the respondent's prior guilty plea and admissions to aggravated indecent assault in a separate case. RH argued that the evidence was inadmissible under the uniform evidence law, which requires that evidence of prior offences be relevant to an issue in the current case. RH also argued that the risk of contamination or concoction between the complainants made the evidence unreliable.

The court considered whether the prior offence evidence was relevant to an issue in the current case and whether the risk of contamination or concoction between the complainants made the evidence unreliable. The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issue of the respondent's propensity to commit indecent assaults and that the risk of contamination or concoction was minimal. The court also considered whether the evidence was admissible under the uniform evidence law, which requires that the probative value of the evidence outweigh any prejudicial effect it may have. The court found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court held that the evidence of the respondent's prior guilty plea and admissions was admissible and that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issue of the respondent's propensity to commit indecent assaults and that the risk of contamination or concoction was minimal. The court also found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence and that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.

Orders