R v Kuol Ngong Majok ADUP [2008] NSWDC 382

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v Kuol Ngong Majok ADUP [2008] NSWDC 382

JUDGMENT DATE: 27 November 2008

JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ

DECISION: I will not give a Prasad direction.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - trial - application for Prasad direction - submission by Defence that cross-examination of the complainant has exposed significant inconsistencies between her evidence and statements given to police and that therefore the Crown case lacks cogency - matter entirely within Judge's discretion

Narendra Prasad (1979) 2 A Crim R 45 CASES CITED: R v Pahuja (1987) 30 A Crim R 118 R v Reardon [2002] NSWCCA 203

PARTIES: Regina Kuol Ngong Majok Adup

FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/8372

COUNSEL: Mr Pincott for the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Taylor for the accused

JUDGMENT

1. I have to make a decision about whether or not I give a direction to this jury. The direction is known by reference to the case that it is based on, Narendra Prasad (1979) 2 A Crim R 45. It is commonly referred to as the Prasad direction.

2. Mr Taylor, counsel for the accused, has applied for such a direction. He advanced his argument just before the Crown Prosecutor closed his case in the absence of the jury but knowing, as has just now occurred, that the Crown Prosecutor would close his case.

3. This is a case concerning a sexual assault. The complainant has given evidence and has been cross-examined by Mr Taylor. Mr Taylor's argument for a Prasad direction is that the cross-examination has exposed significant inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and the statement or statements which she gave to the police. There may also be inconsistencies between her account and some evidence of other witnesses. He argues that the Crown case, because of those inconsistencies, lacks cogency.