Legal Research
Cases
Sheehan v Regina

Sheehan v Regina

Case [2006] NSWCCA 233 16 August 2006

Aggravated Sexual Assault

Miscarriage of Justice

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
163 A Crim R 397

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Sheehan v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 233

HEARING DATE(S): 12/07/06

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Kirby J at 2; Hoeben J at 135

DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed in respect of counts 1 to 7 inclusive; (2) In respect of counts 1 to 7, the convictions are quashed and the sentences set aside. There should be a new trial in respect of such counts; (3) In respect of count 10, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction confirmed; (4) The appellant and the Crown have leave to make further submissions in writing concerning sentence. The appellant should file and serve such submissions within 14 days and the Crown respond within a further 14 days. The submissions should indicate whether the parties seek to supplement their submissions by oral submissions.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Practice & Procedure - aggravated sexual assault of young child - Longman warning - did not use word "warning" or "dangerous to convict" - many counts uncorroborated - one count corroborated - proviso - whether miscarriage of justice - whether Longman fundamental to trial.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161
Doggett v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 343
R v BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241
SJB (2002) 129 A Crim R 572
R v GS [2003] NSWCCA 73
R v WSP [2005] NSWCCA 427
JJB v R [2006] NSWCCA 126
R v Kesisyan [2003] NSWCCA 259
R v DBG (2002) 133 A Crim R 227
Christophers v The Queen (2000) 23 WAR 106
Crisafio v The Queen (2003) 27 WAR 169
RBK v The Queen [2004] WASCA 216
Angliss v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 162
R v GS [2003] NSWCCA 73
R v WRC (2002) 130 A Crim R 89
R v Stewart (2001) NSWLR 301
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593
Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493
R v Cohen and Bateman (1909) 2 Cr App R 197
Quartermaine v The Queen (1980) 143 CLR 595
S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266
R v GPP (2001) A Crim R 1

PARTIES: Ronald John Sheehan (App)
Regina (Resp)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/701

COUNSEL: H Dhanji (App)
P G Ingram (Resp/Crown)

SOLICITORS: J Pearson - LAC (App)
S Kavanagah (Resp/Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/61/116

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Coolahan DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 08/06/05

2006/701

HANDLEY JA
KIRBY J
HOEBEN J
Wednesday 16 August 2006

Ronald John SHEEHAN v REGINA

Judgment

1 HANDLEY J: I agree with Kirby J.

2 KIRBY J: Ronald John Sheehan stood trial before Coolahan DCJ at a jury in the District Court at Orange. The indictment may be summarised as follows:

Count 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 Sheehan v Regina

Details

AGLC: Sheehan v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 233
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 233
Decision Date: 16 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sheehan was charged with multiple offences including aggravated sexual assault of a young child. The case reached the court where the appellant sought to overturn his convictions on several counts. The central legal issue was whether the trial judge's failure to use the specific words "warning" or "dangerous to convict" in relation to uncorroborated counts of the offence constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court had to determine whether the omission of these specific words, as per Longman, was fundamental to the trial process.

The court held that the omission of the exact wording did not necessarily lead to a miscarriage of justice. It was noted that the trial judge did provide a comprehensive warning regarding the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated evidence, even if he did not use the exact terminology. The court emphasised that the essence of the Longman warning was adequately conveyed, and the lack of precise wording did not undermine the integrity of the trial. The critical aspect was that the trial judge ensured the jury understood the need for caution in convicting based on uncorroborated evidence.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that while the judge did not use the exact words "warning" or "dangerous to convict," he effectively communicated the necessary caution to the jury. The failure to use the precise terminology did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The conviction on the corroborated count remained valid, and the appeal was unsuccessful.

Orders