Slattery v R [2023] NSWCCA 117

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Slattery v R [2023] NSWCCA 117 Hearing dates: 2 December 2022 Date of orders: 19 May 2023 Decision date: 19 May 2023 Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Ward P at [171]; Wilson J at [174] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal other than in respect of Ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal. (2) Allow the appeal in part, quash the qualified finding of guilt in respect of Count 13, and enter a verdict that the Appellant is not guilty of the offence charged as Count 13. (3) With respect to the remaining limiting terms – (a) grant leave to the Appellant to file written submissions with respect to any possible variation of the limiting terms within two weeks of the date of this judgment; (b) grant leave to the Director to file submissions in reply within four weeks of the date of this judgment; and (c) direct that if either party wishes to be heard orally with respect to a variation of the sentence, an application should be made within 7 days of the filing of the Director's submissions in response. (4) Otherwise dismiss the appeal. Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – principles to be applied in determining an unreasonable verdict ground of appeal where the accused was found guilty after a trial before judge alone – relevance of the reasons of the trial judge – proper approach to arguments alleging specific error in the reasoning of the trial judge – whether trial judge ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – historical sexual offences against three complainants – where appellant sought to impugn reliability of complainants' evidence on appeal – inconsistencies in complainants' evidence concerning questions of chronology and timing – whether inconsistencies produced reasonable doubt about the complainants' identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the offences – advantage of trial judge in seeing and hearing witnesses give evidence – whether inherently improbable that appellant would commit acts of child sexual abuse in the presence of others CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction — miscarriage of justice – whether failure of defence counsel to adduce evidence of the accused's good character gave rise to miscarriage of justice – whether failure of defence counsel to put evidence of prior criminal convictions to witnesses as a basis for challenging their credibility gave rise to miscarriage of justice – whether appellant deprived of real chance of an acquittal – no miscarriage of justice MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – person unfit to be tried – special hearing – appeal from qualified findings of guilt after special hearing conducted pursuant to s 55 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – whether qualified findings of guilt were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence – principles to be applied – relevance of the reasons of the trial judge – proper approach to arguments alleging specific error in the reasoning of the trial judge Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 79, 80, 81 (as it was at 15 December 1980) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5(1)(b) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 103, 110, 165(2) Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ss 54, 55, 56, 62(b), 63(2) Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) r 4.15 Cases Cited: Clay v R (2014) 245 A Crim R 470; [2014] VSCA 269 Craig v The Queen (2018) 264 CLR 202; [2018] HCA 13 Dansie v The Queen (2022) 96 ALJR 728; [2022] HCA 25 De Silva v R (2013) 236 A Crim R 214; [2013] VSCA 339 Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 GS v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 225 GZ v R [2015] ACTCA 11 JV v R [2017] NSWCCA 49 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; [2008] HCA 1 Nudd v The Queen (2006) 162 A Crim R 301; [2006] HCA 9 Orreal v The Queen (2021) 96 ALJR 78; [2021] HCA 44 Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 R v DBB [2013] 1 Qd R 188; [2012] QCA 96 Sharma v R [2011] VSCA 356 Tieu v R (2016) 92 NSWLR 94; [2016] NSWCCA 111 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Daniel Slattery (Appellant) The Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: D Phillips (Appellant) H Roberts SC with C Young (Respondent)