NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: R v RAG [2006] NSWCCA 343 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 9 June 2006
JUDGMENT DATE: 26 October 2006
JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Johnson J at 2; Latham J at 3
DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Decision of Maguire DCJ of 17 February 2006 is set aside.
CATCHWORDS: CROWN APPEAL - s 5F(2) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - whether decision that complainant not competent to give unsworn evidence an interlocutory judgment or order - criteria under s 13(2) Evidence Act 1995 - limits of inquiry under s 13 - age-appropriate language for child complainant
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 Evidence (Children) Act 1997
Brown, Barwick, Brown v R [2006] NSWCCA 69 R v Ambrosoli (2002) NSWLR 603; [2002] NSWCCA 386 R v Bozatsis & Spanakakis (1997) 97 A Crim R 296 R v Brooks (1998) 44 NSWLR 121; (1998) 102 A Crim R 367 R v Caine & Anor (1993) 68 A Crim R 233 R v Haddad & Treglia [2000] NSWCCA 352 CASES CITED: R v Lavender [2002] NSWCCA 511 R v Lisoff [1999] NSWCCA 364 R v Loc Huu Phan [2003] NSWCCA 205 R v Milakovic [2004] NSWCCA 199 R v O'Neill (2001) 122 A Crim R 510 R v Pavia (1993) 67 A Crim R 364 R v Steffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633 R v Stevenson [2000] WASCA 301
PARTIES: Director of Public Prosecutions (Appl) RAG (Resp)
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