TJC v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 413

CITATION: TJC v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 413

HEARING DATE(S): 28 November 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 December 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1; Adams J at 62; Rothman J at 63

DECISION: Grant an extension of time within which to bring the appeal and the applications for leave to appeal against the sentences to the dates of filing the appropriate notices in the registry. Uphold the appeal, quash the convictions and sentences on the first and second counts and direct the entry of verdicts of acquittal on those counts. Grant leave to appeal against the remaining sentences. Dismiss the appeal against the sentence on the fourth count. Vary the sentence on the fifth count so that it is taken to have commenced on 6 June 2003 and to have expired on 5 June 2005. Vary the non-parole period on the fifth count so that it is taken to have commenced on 6 June 2003 and to have expired on 5 December 2004. Vary the sentence on the carnal knowledge conviction so that it is taken to have commenced on 6 December 2004 and will expire on 5 March 2010. Quash the non-parole period and substitute a non-parole period of three years and six months, which is to be taken as having commenced on 6 December 2004 and which will expire on 5 June 2008. Declare that the first day upon which the appellant will be eligible for consideration for release to parole will be 5 June 2008.

PARTIES: Regina, TJC

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1935; 2006/1937

COUNSEL: R Burgess
D Woodburne

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor
S Kavanagh

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
00/41/0211; 03/11/0269

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hosking SC DCJ, Bellear DCJ

2006/1935
2006/1937

BARR J
ADAMS J
ROTHMAN J
19 DECEMBER 2006

TJC v REGINA

Judgment

1 BARR J: The appellant, whom I shall call TJC, seeks an extension of time within which to appeal against convictions entered in the District Court and to seek leave to appeal against sentences imposed following his conviction at trial and a plea of guilty separately entered.

2 On 6 June 2002 the appellant was found guilty by a jury of the following offences -

Count 1: between 1 and 31 December 1996 having intercourse with a child under the age of ten years;

Count 2: between 1 and 31 December 1996 having intercourse with a child under the age of ten years;

Count 4: between 1 August 1999 and 1 September 1999 indecent assault in circumstances of aggravation; and

3 There were other counts in the indictment but for reasons which need no explanation here the jury found the appellant not guilty as directed by the trial judge.

4 The appellant was convicted on 6 June 2002 and sentenced on 6 September 2002. He later pleaded guilty on an independent charge and was sentenced on…

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 TJC v Regina

Details

AGLC: TJC v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 413
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 413
Decision Date: 19 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of TJC v Regina involved the appellant, TJC, appealing against his convictions and sentences following his conviction at trial and a separate plea of guilty. The appeal was brought to the court seeking leave to appeal against the sentences imposed, and challenging the safety of the verdicts. The court was required to consider whether the verdicts were unsafe and whether the directions given by the judge during the trial were confusing. The appellant argued that the directions from the judge were confusing, leading to an unsafe verdict, and sought to have the non-parole period varied.

The court considered the appeal on the basis of the appellant's argument that the verdicts were unsafe due to the confusing directions from the judge. The court examined the directions given by the judge and whether they were indeed confusing, and whether this confusion led to an unsafe verdict. The court also considered the appellant's argument that the non-parole period should be varied. The court held that the verdicts were not unsafe and that the directions given by the judge were not confusing. The court found that there was no merit in the appellant's argument that the verdicts were unsafe and that the non-parole period should be varied.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentences imposed by the trial judge were upheld. The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's directions, and that the verdicts were safe. The court also found that there was no basis for varying the non-parole period. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and that the sentences imposed by the trial judge be upheld. The appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentences was also dismissed.

Orders