Dedeoglu v R [2023] NSWCCA 126

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Dedeoglu v R [2023] NSWCCA 126 Hearing dates: 14 November 2022 Date of orders: 09 June 2023 Decision date: 09 June 2023 Before: Harrison J at [1] Fagan J at [206] Yehia J at [263] Decision: (1) To the extent required, grant leave to appeal. (2) Dismiss the appeal against conviction. (3) Allow the appeal against sentence. (4) Quash the sentence imposed upon Mr Dedeoglu on 7 April 2020 by her Honour Noman DCJ and in lieu thereof sentence Mr Dedeoglu to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years commencing on 2 April 2019 and expiring on 1 April 2026 with a non-parole period of 5 years expiring on 1 April 2024. (5) Nominate the following indicative sentences: (a) Count 3, 6 months imprisonment. (b) Count 1, 12 months imprisonment. (c) Count 2, 6 years imprisonment. Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – appellant convicted by jury of two counts of sexual assault without consent and one count of sexual touching without consent CRIME – appeals – where ERISP allegedly wrongly admitted – where misleading DNA evidence allegedly wrongly admitted – where phone records allegedly "contradict" Crown case – where misleading screenshot evidence allegedly wrongly admitted – where alleged failure by DPP to provide appellant with "all trial materials" – where evidence of complainant's friends allegedly wrongly admitted – where evidence of doctors allegedly "[not] adequate" – where non-contemporaneous statement of OIC allegedly wrongly admitted – where diary of OIC allegedly wrongly admitted – where failure to call witnesses alleged – where trial judge alleged to have helped Crown – where trial judge allegedly gave misleading directions as to consciousness and consent – where trial judge allegedly misdirected jury on nonresponsive answers – where trial judge allegedly misdirected jury on complainant's evidence – where representation allegedly incompetent – where alleged bias – where verdict allegedly unsafe and unsatisfactory – where judge allegedly misdirected jury as to elements of the offence CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – aggregate sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive EVIDENCE – criminal trials – application of the rule in Browne v Dunn to criminal trial by jury – whether timeliness and consistency of complaint and general improbability of accused's account sufficient to warrant application of the proviso Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61I, s61L Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 33, 66, 89, 89A, 90, 104 Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) r 4.15 Cases Cited: Agresti v The Queen (2017) 13 ACTLR 1; [2017] ACTCA 20 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 Davies and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170 at 180; [1937] HCA 27 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Sullivan [2022] NSWCCA 183 Dogan v R [2020] NSWCCA 151 Graham v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 606; [1998] HCA 61 Hawi v R (2014) 244 A Crim R 169; [2014] NSWCCA 83 Hofer v R (2021) 395 ALR 1; [2021] HCA 36 JW v R [2022] NSWCCA 206 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53 Monteiro v R [2011] NSWCCA 113 MWJ v R (2005) 222 ALR 436; [2005] HCA 74 Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9 R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677 R v Coswello [2009] VSCA 300 R v Manunta (1989) 54 SASR 17 R v MAP [2006] QCA 220 R v Miletic [1997] 1 VR 593 Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510; [1974] HCA 35 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81 Zhou v R [2021] NSWCCA 278 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Onur Dedeoglu (Appellant) Rex (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: I Nash (Respondent)