Daniel Gerard OLDFIELD v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 219

Reported Decision : 163 A Crim R 242

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Daniel Gerard OLDFIELD v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 219

HEARING DATE(S): 21 June 2006

JUDGMENT DATE: 25 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Grove J at 54; Hidden J at 55

DECISION: Appeal allowed, convictions quashed and a new trial ordered.

CATCHWORDS: Alleged sexual assaults - four counts - events in one episode - verdicts of guilty on two counts and not guilty on two counts - whether inconsistent verdicts - whether logical and reasonable explanation for differentiation - whether direction required that if reasonable doubt in relation to one or more counts that must be taken into account in assessing complainant's truthfulness and reliability generally - accused's counsel failed to put instructions on certain matters to complainant - Crown Prosecutor's cross-examination of accused included questions about not putting the matters - implicit that accused's evidence of those matters was made up - whether cross-examination permissible - whether warning required that may be explanation for failure to put instructions which did not reflect upon accused's credibility. D

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 60J(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 6(1)

Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; Pike v R [2006] NSWCCA 32; R v Abdullah [2001] NSWCCA 506; R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677; R v Bonat [2004] NSWCCA 240; CASES CITED: R v Cornwell [2006] NSWCCA 116; R v Dennis [1999] NSWCCA 23; R v GAR [2003] NSWCCA 224; R v Manunta (SASR, 28 July 1989, unreported); R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; R v Picker [2002] NSWCCA 78; R v Scott [2004] NSWCCA 254; Weiss v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 444.