Rowney v The Queen - [2007] NSWCCA 49

Reported Decision: 168 A Crim R 579

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: ROWNEY v R [2007] NSWCCA 49

HEARING DATE(S): 8 November 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 February 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 53; Rothman J at 93

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - sexual assault - acquittal directed on 3 counts - 13 year delay in complaint - whether trial judge erred in rejecting relationship evidence between the complainant and appellant whether jury verdicts unreasonable - whether verdicts unsupported by evidence - inconsistencies between complainant’s evidence and Crown opening

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1986
Criminal Appeal Rules 1912

CASES CITED: Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82
R v Rose (2002) 55 NSWLR 701

PARTIES: Douglas William Rowney (Appl)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1736

COUNSEL: P A Beale/G A Newton (Appl)
P Barrett (Crown

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/31/0208

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Payne DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 8 March 2006

2006/1736

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
ROTHMAN J
TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2007

ROWNEY, Douglas Willliam v REGINA

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The appellant Douglas William Rowney was tried in relation to the following counts:

Six counts of sexual intercourse with a person under ten years and under the age of sixteen years being an offence against s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act (counts 1, 2, 4, 5 6, and 7); and

Crimes Act

2 At the close of the Crown case the trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal in relation to counts 2, 5 and 6. The jury returned verdicts of guilty in relation to counts 1, 3, 4 and 7.

3 The appellant appeals against his conviction and raises two grounds of appeal. I shall return to the precise grounds of appeal later in these reasons.

The course of the trial

4 Each of the counts with which the appellant was charged was concerned with allegations that he had engaged in sexual activity with the complainant who turned thirteen in February 1988. The counts in respect of which guilty verdicts were returned related to incidents which allegedly occurred between 1 September 1987 and 31 January 1988 at locations near Gunnedah. Counts 1, 3 and 4 related to events which allegedly occurred at Kelvin and count 7 to events which allegedly occurred at Manilla. The incidents were alleged to have occurred when both the appellant’s family and the complainant’s family were living, in separate houses, on a property called “Rangari”, near Gunnedah.

5 Counts 1…

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 Rowney v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rowney v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 49
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 49
Decision Date: 27 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rowney v The Queen, the appellant, Rowney, challenged his conviction for sexual assault. The trial had resulted in an acquittal on three counts, while the jury found him guilty on three other counts. The complainant had reported the alleged offences 13 years after they occurred. The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on whether the trial judge had erred in rejecting the introduction of evidence pertaining to the relationship between the complainant and the appellant. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, particularly given the inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and the Crown's opening.

The court examined the trial judge's decision to exclude evidence of the relationship between the complainant and the appellant, considering whether this exclusion was an error that might have affected the outcome of the trial. The court also considered the inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and the Crown's opening, as well as the weight of the evidence presented to the jury. The court assessed whether the jury's verdicts were reasonable in light of the evidence and whether there were any other factors that might have influenced the jury's decision-making process.

The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in excluding the relationship evidence as it was deemed irrelevant to the central issue of whether the alleged assaults had occurred. The court also found that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Despite the inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and the Crown's opening, the court found that the jury had properly considered the evidence and reached a reasonable verdict. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction on the three counts for which the appellant had been found guilty. The acquittal on the other three counts was affirmed.

Orders