Legal Research
Cases
Steadman v R (No 1)

Steadman v R (No 1)

Case [2013] NSWCCA 55 13 March 2013

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Steadman v R (No 1)

Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCCA 55

Hearing Date(s): 19 November 2012

Decision Date: 13 March 2013

Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Hall J at [25]
Campbell J at [26]

Decision:
(1) Leave to raise second ground of appeal refused.

(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE - indecent assault of person under the age of 16 - context evidence to assist in evaluation of complainant's evidence of alleged offences - previous conduct of the appellant of a sexual nature involving the complainant - requirements for use as propensity evidence not satisfied - appropriate directions to the jury

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

Cases Cited: BBH v R [2012] HCA 9; 245 CLR 499
DJV v R [2008] NSWCCA 272; 200 A Crim R 206
ES v R (No. 1) [2010] NSWCCA 197
ES v R (No. 2) [2010] NSWCCA 198
HML v R [2008] HCA 16; 235 CLR 352
KSC v R [2012] NSWCCA 179
Pfennnig v R [1995] HCA 7; 182 CLR 461
Qualtieri v R [2006] NSWCCA 95; 171 A Crim R 463
R v ATM [2000] NSWCCA 475
Roach v R [2011] HCA 12; 242 CLR 610
Rodden v R [2008] NSWCCA 53; 182 A Crim R 227

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Ivan Bruce Steadman (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
N Steel (Appellant)
N Noman SC (Respondent)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Andrew Harris & Associates (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/151505

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal: District Court

- Before: Sweeney DCJ

- Date of Decision: 06 May 2011

- Citation: R v Ivan Bruce Steadman

- Court File Number(s): 2009/151505

JUDGMENT

MACFARLAN JA: After a trial in the District Court before a judge and jury, the appellant was convicted on three counts of indecent assault of a person under the age of 16, in each case, his niece (s 61E(1) and 1(A) Crimes Act 1900). He appeals against his convictions on the grounds that the trial judge erred in admitting "context" evidence and in any event gave inadequate directions to the jury concerning that evidence.

THE COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE THREE COUNTS

As to the first count, the complainant gave evidence that in 1983, when she was 12 years of age, the appellant accosted her in the hallway of her home and put his tongue in her mouth, resulting in the complainant pushing him away and grabbing tufts of his hair.
As to the second count, the complainant gave evidence that in 1986, when she was 15 years old and staying overnight with the appellant and his wife at their home, the appellant came into the bathroom whilst she was showering and put his erect penis between her legs in her vaginal area. On the same evening she woke up in her bed to find the appellant on top of her. This latter incident…

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 Steadman v R (No 1)

Details

AGLC: Steadman v R (No 1) [2013] NSWCCA 55
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 55
Decision Date: 13 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of indecently assaulting a young girl under the age of 16. The case came before the court on appeal from a conviction in the County Court at first instance. The primary issue before the court was whether evidence of previous sexual conduct between the appellant and the complainant was improperly admitted as propensity evidence. The court was also required to determine whether the trial judge's directions to the jury about the use of such evidence were adequate.

The court considered that the evidence of previous sexual conduct was not properly admissible as propensity evidence. Such evidence can only be admitted if it is relevant to an issue other than the appellant's disposition to commit the offence. In this case, the court found that the evidence was improperly admitted to prove the appellant's propensity to commit the offence of indecent assault. The court also found that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the use of the evidence were inadequate. The judge did not sufficiently warn the jury that the evidence could not be used to prove the appellant's propensity to commit the offence, and that it could only be considered in the context of assessing the complainant's credibility.

The court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. The court held that the admission of the impugned evidence was a significant error that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The court also held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate to ensure that the jury understood the limited purpose for which the evidence could be considered. The court concluded that the conviction could not stand and ordered a retrial to ensure that the appellant received a fair trial.

Orders