NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mortimer v R [2021] NSWCCA 47 Hearing dates: 20 July 2020 Date of orders: 26 March 2021 Decision date: 26 March 2021 Before: Johnson J at [1]; Garling J at [223]; Wright J at [224]. Decision: 1. Grant the Applicant leave under Rule 4 Criminal Appeal Rules to rely upon the ground of appeal;
2. grant the Applicant leave to appeal against conviction;
3. allow the appeal and quash the convictions at the Newcastle District Court on 23 February 2018;
4. quash the aggregate sentence passed at the Newcastle District Court on 10 August 2018;
5. order a new trial of the Applicant on each of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the indictment dated 5 February 2018;
6. list the matter in the Arraignments List at the Sydney District Court at 9.30 am on 9 April 2021. Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against conviction – applicant convicted of child sex offences – ground of appeal challenges aspects of summing up to jury – statements by trial Judge concerning evidence of children – whether statements made exceeded permissible comment in accordance with RGM v R [2012] NSWCCA 89 and McKell v The Queen (2019) 264 CLR 307; [2019] HCA 5 – held that cumulative effect of statements gave rise to miscarriage of justice – appeal allowed – convictions quashed – new trial ordered Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Criminal Appeal Rules Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Evidence Act 1995 Cases Cited: ABR (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 33 AL v R (2017) 266 A Crim R 1; [2017] NSWCCA 34 Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437; [1952] HCA 3 ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266 CMG v R [2011] VSCA 416 Decision Restricted [2020] NSWCCA 256 Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 Lane v R (2013) 241 A Crim R 321; [2013] NSWCCA 317 McKell v R [2017] NSWCCA 291 McKell v The Queen (2019) 264 CLR 307; [2019] HCA 5 NJB v R [2010] NTCCA 5 OKS v State of Western Australia (2019) 265 CLR 268; [2019] HCA 10 Pyliotis v Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] VSCA 134 R v Heron [2000] NSWCCA 312 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 R v Pavlukoff (1953) 106 CCC 249 R v RTB [2002] NSWCCA 104 R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 54 R v Taleb [2006] NSWCCA 119 R v Wilson (2005) 62 NSWLR 346; [2005] NSWCCA 20 RGM v R [2012] NSWCCA 89 Robinson v R (2006) 162 A Crim R 88; [2006] NSWCCA 192 SC v R [2020] NSWCCA 314 Spurritt v R [2021] VSCA 7 The Queen v Dookheea (2017) 262 CLR 402; [2017] HCA 36 WX v R [2020] NSWCCA 142 Texts Cited: --- Category: Principal judgment Parties: David Mortimer (a pseudonym) (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr D Carroll; Mr P Swaine (Applicant) Ms MA Kumar (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