Tully v The Queen [2006] HCA 56

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ

RAYMOND DOUGLAS TULLY APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Tully v The Queen [2006] HCA 56 7 December 2006 B12/2006

ORDER

Appeal dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation

A J Kimmins with K A M Greenwood for the appellant (instructed by Welldon Zande & Reddy)

L J Clare with V A Loury for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Q))

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Tully v The Queen

Evidence – Criminal trial – Sexual offence – Uncorroborated evidence – Delay in making of complaint – General rule from Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 requiring warning of danger of conviction – Whether trial judge bound to give a warning in present case – Duty to make comments in interests of justice – Requirement of fair trial – Conviction depended on evidence of complainant alone – Whether need for warning or comment as referred to in Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162.

Evidence – Criminal trial – Sexual offence – Evidence of uncharged acts – Whether admissible as relationship evidence – Whether subject to the constraints imposed for the admissibility of similar fact or propensity evidence.

Words and phrases – "delay", "Longman warning", "propensity evidence", "similar fact evidence", "uncharged acts", "uncorroborated evidence".

Criminal Code (Q), ss 229B, 632. Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Q), s 4A. Evidence Act 1977 (Q), Div 4A, subdiv 3.

KIRBY J. This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. By that judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to his conviction of sexual offences against a young girl ("the complainant"), the daughter of his then domestic partner.