Ward P at [1]; Yehia J at [109]; Coleman J at [110]
Decision:
1. Extend time for the filing of the notices of appeal to the date it was filed.
2. Grant leave to appeal.
3. Dismiss the appeal.
Catchwords:
CRIME - appeals - appeal against conviction - where the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of assault with the act of indecency – where the appellant was convicted of sexual intercourse in circumstances of aggravation (under authority) – where the appellant was convicted of common assault – whether the trial judge’s reasons on the subject of consciousness of guilt were inadequate and failed to comply with s 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) – whether the trial judge erred by applying consciousness of guilt reasoning in relation to each count on the indictment when it was not open to do so.
CRIME - appeals - extension of time in which to appeal – where the appellant seeks an extension pursuant to s 10(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal from his convictions – where the notice of appeal was filed six months after the expiry of the notice of intention to 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 RJ v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
RJ v The King [2025] NSWCCA 68
Case
[2025] NSWCCA 68
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, RJ, appealed against his conviction for multiple counts of assault with the act of indecency, sexual intercourse in circumstances of aggravation, and common assault. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge's reasons for conviction adequately addressed the appellant's claim that the reasoning on consciousness of guilt was inadequate and failed to comply with section 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). Another issue was whether the trial judge had erred in applying consciousness of guilt reasoning to each count on the indictment.
The court found that the trial judge's reasons did not sufficiently address the appellant's argument regarding consciousness of guilt, and that the reasoning did not comply with section 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). The court also held that the trial judge had erred in applying consciousness of guilt reasoning to each count on the indictment. The court noted that while the reasoning was adequate in relation to some counts, it was not open to the trial judge to apply such reasoning to other counts. The court concluded that the trial judge's reasoning was inadequate and that the appellant's convictions could not stand. The court also found that the appellant had made out a case for an extension of time to appeal, pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), and granted the extension.
The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a re-trial. The court found that the trial judge's reasoning on the subject of consciousness of guilt was inadequate and that the appellant's convictions could not stand. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in applying consciousness of guilt reasoning to each count on the indictment. The court granted the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal, and allowed the appeal. The convictions were quashed, and a re-trial was ordered.