NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: JS v R [2022] NSWCCA 145 Hearing dates: 13 May 2022 Date of orders: 29 June 2022 Decision date: 29 June 2022 Before: Basten AJA at [1]; Hamill J at [53]; Dhanji J at [54] Decision: (1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal from his convictions in the District Court. (2) Dismiss the appeal. Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – trial – directions to jury – allegation that accused had sexual interest in complainant and tendency to act on it – jury directed to consider evidence of uncharged and charged acts collectively – whether judge should have directed jury that each act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before use as tendency evidence – Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 161A EVIDENCE – record of interview with complainant adduced as evidence-in-chief – admissibility to support complainant's credibility and as direct evidence of assault EVIDENCE – credibility evidence – evidence re-establishing credibility – complaints made 10 years after alleged offences – no application for leave to adduce evidence – no objection to evidence – whether admissible to support complainant's credibility – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 66, 108(3) EVIDENCE – tendency evidence – single complainant sexual offences – evidence of uncharged acts – evidence of accused having a sexual interest in complainant and tendency to act upon it – cross-admissibility of charged acts as tendency evidence Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 161A, Sch 2 Pt 29 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 66, 101A, 102, 108 Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), ss 61, 62 Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.15 Cases Cited: Graham v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 606; [1998] HCA 61 HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16 Kassab (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 46 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56 The Queen v Bauer (a pseudonym) (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40 Texts Cited: ** Category: Principal judgment Parties: JS (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms G Huxley (Applicant) Mr G Newton (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