Legal Research
Cases
Wilson v R

Wilson v R

Case [2006] NSWCCA 217 2 August 2006

Conviction Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Crown Address

Undue Influence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Peter James Wilson v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 217

HEARING DATE(S): 10 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Adams J at 2; Latham J at 3

DECISION: Appeal Dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Conviction appeal - inconsistent verdicts - Crown address raising motive to lie and lies told by appellant as consciousness of guilt - admission of videotaped interview with complainant as exhibit in trial - refreshing memory from document.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Evidence (Children) Act 1997

CASES CITED: M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Mosegaard [2005] NSWCCA 361
R v Cox [1999] NSWCCA 62
R v Hughes [2000] NSWCCA 3
R v VHP NSWCCA (unreported) 17 June 1997
Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193
R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 468
R v Uhrig NSWCCA (unreported) 24 October 1996
Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234
R v Campbell [2005] NSWCCA 132
Bolus v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 182
R v AH (1997) 42 NSWLR 702
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461
Qualtieri v Regina [2006 NSWCCA 95
R v NZ (2005) 63 NSWLR 628 ; [2005] NSWCCA 278
R v DBG (2002) 133 A Crim R 227 ; [2002] NSWCCA 328
R v RTGS [2005] NSWCCA 293

PARTIES: Peter James Wilson - Applicant
Regina - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2412

COUNSEL: Ms Bashir - Applicant
Mr W Dawe QC - Crown Respondent

SOLICITORS: Mr S O'Connor - Applicant
S Kavanagh - Crown Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/31/0269

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Coolahan DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 15 June 2005

2005/2412

HANDLEY JA
ADAMS J
LATHAM J
2 August 2006

PETER JAMES WILSON v REGINA

Judgment

1 HANDLEY JA: I agree with Latham J

2 ADAMS J: I agree with Latham J

3 LATHAM J: The appellant appeals against his conviction on one count of Sexual Intercourse with a Child (CM) under 10 years (fellatio) and one count of Aggravated Act of Indecency towards CM. Those offences were Counts 1 and 3 on an indictment containing seven counts to which the appellant pleaded not guilty on 24 August 2004. At the conclusion of the trial on 1 September 2004, there was a verdict by direction on Count 2 and acquittals by the jury on Counts 4, 5, 6 and 7. The verdict by direction on Count 2 (Commit an act of indecency towards CM) arose from an absence of evidence capable of establishing that the appellant was aware of CM’s presence.

The Evidence at Trial

4 In 2002, the complainant, CM, a nine-year old boy, lived with his father, GM, in a rented three bedroom house at Tighes Hill in Newcastle. Ms L, GM’s then partner, also lived in the premises. The couple occupied one bedroom, CM occupied another bedroom and a boarder, DB, occupied the third bedroom.

5 In mid to late 2002, GM met…

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 Wilson v R

Details

AGLC: Wilson v R [2006] NSWCCA 217
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 217
Decision Date: 2 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wilson v R, the appellant, Wilson, sought to appeal his conviction for various charges including sexual assault. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence and the consistency of the verdicts. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence and in the way the jury was directed regarding inconsistent verdicts.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was properly admitted and whether the trial judge had adequately instructed the jury on the matter of inconsistent verdicts. The court needed to determine if the admission of evidence, including a videotaped interview and a document used to refresh the memory of a witness, was appropriate and if the jury's understanding of inconsistent verdicts was correctly guided.

The court found that there was no error in the admission of the evidence as it was relevant to the case and did not unfairly prejudice the appellant. Regarding the jury instructions, the court held that the trial judge had adequately informed the jury about the possibility of inconsistent verdicts, ensuring that the jury understood they could convict on lesser included offences even if they were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the primary charge. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, as the court found no grounds to interfere with the trial judge's decisions. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the convictions stand as originally decided.

Orders