Uddin v R [2020] NSWCCA 115

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Uddin v R [2020] NSWCCA 115 Hearing dates: 11 May 2020; Written submissions on 18 and 20 May 2020 Date of orders: 03 June 2020 Decision date: 03 June 2020 Before: Meagher JA; Fullerton J; Wilson J Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 2.

(2) Allow the appeal on each ground.

(3) Quash the appellant's convictions on counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.

(4) Order that there be a new trial. Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Where accused sought a voir dire examination to establish evidence of "experimental or explorative touching" between young children – Where trial judge declined to hold a voir dire because prospective evidence inadmissible under Criminal Procedure Act, s 293 – Whether prospective evidence likely to be inadmissible by reason of s 293(3) – Whether prospective evidence likely to be within exception in s 293(4)(a) – Whether s 293 prevents evidence being adduced in an examination on a voir dire – Appeal allowed on ground 1 (unanimous).

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Trial – Directions to jury – Misdirection – Where evidence led of conduct of complainant "consistent" with the alleged offending having occurred – Where evidence incorrectly described by Crown as "complaint" evidence – Where directions provided limited guidance as to use of conduct evidence – Where no objection taken by defence counsel at trial to directions as to use or to description of evidence as "complaint" evidence – Whether directions were inadequate – Whether a miscarriage of justice – Whether to grant leave to appeal under Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4 – Leave granted – Appeal allowed on ground 2 (by majority). Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66A(1), 61M(2), 61HB(1), 61HC(1), 61KC and 409B Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 3(1) and 293 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1)(b) and 6 Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), r 4 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55 and 66 Cases Cited: Adams v R [2018] NSWCCA 303 BG v R [2010] NSWCCA 301; (2010) 208 A Crim R 34 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; [1984] HCA 7 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51 GEH v R [2012] NSWCCA 150; (2012) 228 A Crim R 32 Goldsmith v Sandilands [2002] HCA 31; (2002) 76 ALJR 1024 HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414; [1999] HCA 2 Monis v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 92; [2013] HCA 4 R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337 R v G (1997) 42 NSWLR 451 R v Lillyman [1896] 2 QB 167 R v Morgan (1993) 30 NSWLR 543 R v Rahme [2004] NSWCCA 233 RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56 Sio v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 47; [2016] HCA 32 Spies v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 603; [2000] HCA 43 Taylor v The Queen (2009) 78 NSWLR 198; [2009] NSWCCA 180 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mohammed Giash Uddin (applicant) The Crown (respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Game SC and D Barrow (applicant) D Kell SC and E Jones (respondent)