R v Connors [2000] NSWCCA 470

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Connors [2000] NSWCCA 470 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60829/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 03/11/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 November 2000

PARTIES : Regina v Clifford Ronald Connors JUDGMENT OF : Giles JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 2; James J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/1097 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Nield DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : W Terracini SC/RC Pontello - Appellant P G Berman SC - Crown SOLICITORS : W H Parsons and Associates - Appellant S E O'Connor - Crown CATCHWORDS : Criminal law - Evidence Act s165 - corroboration - motive in complainant to lie. DECISION : Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60829/99 Giles JA Wood CJ at CL James J

20 November 2000 REGINA v Clifford Ronald CONNORS

JUDGMENT 1 GILES JA: I agree with James J 2 WOOD CJ at CL: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of James J. I agree with his reasons and the orders he proposes. 3 JAMES J: This is an appeal by Clifford Ronald Connors against his conviction, after a trial in the District Court before his Honour Judge Nield and a jury, on one charge of aggravated indecent assault (an offence under s61M of the Crimes Act) and four charges of homosexual intercourse with a male person aged between ten and eighteen years (offences under s78K of the Crimes Act). At the trial the jury found the appellant not guilty of another charge of aggravated indecent assault. 4 The complainant in the case of all the alleged offences was a boy born in November 1984, who was thirteen or fourteen years old at the time the offences were allegedly committed. The complainant's age was the circumstance of aggravation in the alleged offences of aggravated indecent assault. 5 The appellant was the minister of a church in a suburb of Sydney, which the complainant's mother, the complainant and the complainant's younger brother ("B"), who was born in August 1987, attended. It was alleged by the Crown that all of the offences were committed in a house in which the appellant and his male partner, a man named Stuart Simons, lived, during periods while the complainant and his brother were staying at the house. 6 The Crown had initially wished to present a single indictment against the appellant, charging him, not merely with the six offences allegedly committed against the complainant, but also with three offences allegedly committed against B. However, before the trial commenced, Judge Nield ruled that there should be separate trials of the charges involving the complainant and the charges involving B. Accordingly, the indictment presented by the Crown at the trial was limited to the charges involving the complainant. Judge Nield also ruled that at the trial of the charges involving the complainant evidence that the appellant had committed offences against B would not be admissible and, in accordance with his Honour's ruling, no such evidence was adduced at the trial. 7 The charges in the indictment which was presented at the trial can be summarised as follows:-