TJ v R [2009] NSWCCA 257 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):
26 June 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
21 October 2009
JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan CJatCL at 1; Hidden J at 76; McCallum J at 84
DECISION:
By majority: appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - appeal against conviction - sexual assault - particular grounds of appeal - misdirection and non-direction - direction where accused disadvantaged by delay in complaint - whether Longman warning adequate - requirements of Longman warning - whether a warning required in terms - whether particular words required - INTERPRETATION - amendment to s 294 Criminal Procedure Act - transitional provisions - transitional provisions not to apply to proceedings commenced before the commencement of the amendments - when proceedings commence - WORDS & PHRASES - "proceedings" - "caution" - "warning" - "in terms"
[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 TJ v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
TJ v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 257
Case
[2009] NSWCCA 257
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of TJ v The Queen, the appellant, TJ, sought to appeal his conviction for sexual assault. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary focus of the appeal was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate in light of the delay between the alleged assault and the complaint made by the complainant. Specifically, the appeal challenged the trial judge's decision not to give a particularised direction, commonly referred to as a Longman warning, concerning the potential impact of the delay on the reliability of the complainant's evidence.
The legal issues before the court revolved around the adequacy of the Longman warning given by the trial judge. The appellant argued that the warning was insufficient because it did not specifically address the prejudice that may have arisen from the delay in reporting the offence. The court was required to determine whether the warning was adequate in terms of informing the jury of the potential prejudice arising from the delay, and whether the particularised Longman warning was necessary in the circumstances of this case. Additionally, the court had to interpret the transitional provisions of the amended Criminal Procedure Act to determine whether they applied to proceedings that had commenced before the amendments were made.
The High Court found that the trial judge's Longman warning was adequate as it sufficiently alerted the jury to the potential prejudice caused by the delay in reporting the offence. The court held that the warning did not need to be given in specific terms or use particular words to be considered adequate. The court also ruled that the transitional provisions of the amended Criminal Procedure Act did not apply to proceedings that had commenced before the amendments, clarifying that the commencement of proceedings is determined by the filing of the indictment or the apprehension of the accused. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.