NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Curran v R [2020] NSWCCA 171 Hearing dates: 11 June 2020 Date of orders: 18 June 2020 Decision date: 20 July 2020 Before: Basten JA at [1]; R A Hulme J at [130]; Hamill J at [137] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal against conviction. (2) Allow the appeal against conviction in part. (3) Quash the convictions on Counts 3 and 4 of the indictment and quash the aggregate sentence imposed. (4) Enter verdicts of acquittal in respect of Counts 3 and 4. (5) Appeal otherwise dismissed. (6) In respect of Counts 1, 5, 6 and 7, sentence Graeme Bryan Curran to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 16 months with a non-parole period of 9 months. The sentence is to date from 23 August 2019. The non-parole period expired on 22 May 2020 and the total term will expire on 22 December 2020. Accordingly, the offender is now entitled to release pursuant to a statutory parole order. Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – sexual assault offences – applicant convicted of seven of nine counts of indecent assault on a male – whether jury verdict was unreasonable or unsupportable having regard to the acquittals – convictions quashed on two counts – open to the jury to be satisfied of the applicant's guilt in relation to the other five counts CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – trial – conduct of prosecutor – two inappropriate statements in closing address – suggestion that the accused had a "motive to lie" – suggestion that the accused had a general tendency not supported by the evidence – whether miscarriage of justice EVIDENCE – reliability – whether complainant's evidence capable of sustaining convictions of two counts of indecent assault – details of assaults given many years later after several statements to police – express denial of facts charged – effects of hypnosis – memories suppressed – whether evidence unreliable – whether jury could rationally assess reliability Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6 Cases Cited: Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56 Livermore v The Queen (2006) 67 NSWLR 659; [2006] NSWCCA 334 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 MAJW v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 255 Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2 Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12; 94 ALJR 394 Robinson v The Queen (1991) 180 CLR 531; [1991] HCA 38 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657; [1983] HCA 42 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Graeme Bryan Curran (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr P Boulten SC / Ms G Lewer (Applicant) Ms M England / Ms E Curran (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate