TDP v R; R v TDP

The appellant, TDP, appealed against his conviction on nine counts of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent and two counts of aggravated indecent assault. The crimes were committed over 3½ years against a complainant who was aged between 13 and 16 at the time of the offences. The Crown, in turn, appealed against the sentence imposed on the appellant. The appellant was self-represented in the Court of Appeal, while the Crown was represented by counsel. The appeal was heard by a Full Bench of the Court of Appeal in New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a failure by the Crown to place all relevant evidence before the jury, the relevance of a toxicology report on the complainant's hair, and whether the trial judge erred in their summing up. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to emphasise contradictions in the complainant's evidence and did not give a warning as to the unreliable nature of her evidence. The appellant also claimed that the trial judge did not adequately sum up as to the corroboration of the complainant's evidence. Additionally, the appellant argued that there was a miscarriage of justice due to the incompetence of counsel. The Crown's appeal was focused on the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, particularly the failure to impose non-parole periods, contrary to section 45(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The court found that the Crown had not failed to place all relevant evidence before the jury, and that the toxicology report on the complainant's hair was not relevant to the case. The court held that the trial judge's summing up did not contain any significant errors and that the appellant's claims of incompetence of counsel did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the conviction appeal was dismissed. Regarding the Crown's appeal, the court found that the sentencing judge had failed to impose non-parole periods as required by statute, but the sentences were not manifestly inadequate when taking into account the appellant's mental health and the accumulation of sentences. The Crown's appeal against the sentence was substantially dismissed.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's conviction appeal and substantially dismissed the Crown's appeal against sentence. The appellant's convictions and sentences were affirmed, with the exception of the failure to impose non-parole periods. The court ordered that the non-parole periods be imposed in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.