Le v R [2020] NSWCCA 238

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Le v R [2020] NSWCCA 238 Hearing dates: 26 August 2020 Decision date: 23 September 2020 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Davies J at [110]; Adamson J at [134] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Appeal dismissed. (3) Order, until further order, on the ground in s 8(1)(e) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), that the complainant be referred to by the pseudonym, S, and not otherwise identified. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – found guilty by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm while reckless as to the causing of actual bodily harm by way of stomping or kicking the victim's hip – acquitted of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm – sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months – appeal asserting that verdict of jury unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to evidence – Crown case relied on a single witness – challenge to reliability of that witness – apparent discrepancy between initial complaint and texts sent to applicant – failure to adequately explain discrepancy – problems with complaint evidence – unexplained failure on the part of Crown to call an important witness – medical evidence supported claim – availability of reasonable alternate hypothesis explaining injury – leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed. Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) – s 8(1)(e) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 35(2) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1)(b) Cases Cited: Chidiac v The Queen (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 120 Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; [2012] HCA 34 Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285; [2002] HCA 45 Fennell v The Queen [2019] HCA 37 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Mahmood v State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; [2008] HCA 1 MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53 Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12 RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 Category: Principal judgment Parties: David Ahn Le – Applicant Regina – Respondent Crown Representation: Counsel: H Dhanji SC/K Edwards – Applicant B Hatfield – Respondent Crown