SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | TI v The Queen |
Citation: | [2015] ACTCA 62 |
Hearing Date: | 3 August 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 16 December 2015 |
Before: | Penfold, Burns and North JJ |
Decision: | Leave is refused under r 5531 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) with respect to Grounds of appeal 1 and 2. The appeal is dismissed. |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Particular Offences – offences committed against children – sexual offences – incest – act of indecency on a young person – convicted at trial by jury. APPEAL – Court of Appeal – whether a miscarriage of justice resulted from the absence of any warning by the trial judge to the jury regarding the complainant’s evidence – whether a miscarriage of justice resulted from the absence of any direction by the trial judge regarding opinion evidence – whether the verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – whether leave should be granted to argue grounds pursuant to r 5531 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – leave not granted – appeal dismissed. |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 5531 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 165 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37O |
Cases Cited: | BCM v The Queen (2013) 303 ALR 387 Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315 Korres v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 53 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 |
Texts Cited: | Ainat Panksy et al, ‘Eyewitness Recall and Testimony’ in Neil Brewer and Kipling D Williams (eds), Psychology and Law – An Empirical Perspective (Guilford Press, 2005) 93. Judicial College of Victoria, Victorian Criminal Charge Book (29 June 2015), Part 4.13.1. Peter McClellan, ‘Who is telling the truth? Psychology, common sense and the law’ (2006) 80 Australian Law Journal 655. |
Parties: | TI (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr S Odgers SC (Appellant) Mr J White SC (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Bevan & Co Lawyers (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 58 of 2014 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Ross J Date of Decision: 29 August 2014 Case Title: R v [TI] Court File Number: SCC 59 of 2013 |
Penfold J:
I have had the opportunity to read the judgment of Burns…
Continue reading TI v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- TI v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 62
- Case
- [2015] ACTCA 62
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge’s failure to provide a warning to the jury regarding the complainant’s evidence, and the absence of a direction concerning opinion evidence, constituted a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the Court considered whether the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The applicant also sought leave to argue further grounds of appeal pursuant to rule 5531 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT).
The Court of Appeal determined that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. It found that the grounds of appeal relating to the absence of a warning and a direction on opinion evidence were without merit. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the verdicts returned by the jury were reasonable and adequately supported by the evidence presented at trial. Consequently, leave to argue the additional grounds was refused.
Leave to argue grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal was refused under rule 5531 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), and the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave is refused under r 5531 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) with respect to Grounds of appeal 1 and 2.
The appeal is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.