Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4 Hearing dates: 11 July 2013 Decision date: 20 February 2014 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Price J at [432]; Campbell J at [472] Decision: 1 Appeal against conviction dismissed. 2 Crown appeal against sentence allowed. 3 Quash the sentences imposed by Woods DCJ for counts 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29 being offences contrary to s 66C(2) Crimes Act. 4 In lieu thereof, for each count sentence the appellant to imprisonment for 5 years consisting of a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months commencing on 4 July 2016 and expiring on 3 January 2019 with a balance of term of 2 years 6 months commencing on 4 January 2019 and expiring on 3 July 2021. 5 Quash the sentences imposed by Woods DCJ for counts 35, 36, 37 and 38 being offences contrary to s 61M(1) Crimes Act. 6 In lieu thereof, for each count sentence the appellant to imprisonment for 6 years consisting of a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 4 July 2012 and expiring on 3 July 2016 with a balance of term of 2 years commencing on 4 July 2016 and expiring on 3 July 2018. 7 Confirm the sentences imposed by Woods DCJ for counts 1-16 inclusive, 19, 20, 24, 25-27 inclusive and 30-34 inclusive. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - sexual offences alleged by multiple complainants - tendency evidence - circular or coincidence reasoning - whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to tendency. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - evidence of complaint - whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of complaint or misdirected the jury regarding the use to be made of complaint evidence. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - sexual experience of complainant - s 293 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - whether error in refusing leave to cross-examine complainant about sexual experience. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - s 38 Evidence Act 1995 - whether the trial judge erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine and obtain supplementary evidence - whether error in directions. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether the trial judge erred in declining re-examination to re-establish credibility. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether impermissible cross-examination of the appellant's character witnesses. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether summing up was fair and balanced - whether the trial judge failed to adequately put the defence case to the jury. CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal against sentence - whether the trial judge failed to appropriately accumulate the sentences leading to manifest inadequacy. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61E, 61M, 66C, 66D, 78Q, 81 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 5D, 6, 10, 28 Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 130A, 293 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 11, 38, 39, 46, 60, 66, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 106, 108, 135, 136, 137, 192 Cases Cited: Adam v The Queen [2001] HCA 57; (2001) 207 CLR 96 Abdel-Hady ('Sa') v R [2011] NSWCCA 196 BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 303 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 Carbines v Powell (1925) 36 CLR 88 Cesan v The Queen [2008] HCA 52; (2008) 236 CLR 358 Col v R [2013] NSWCCA 302 DJV v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 272; (2008) 200 A Crim R 206 GEH v R [2012] NSWCCA 150 Graham v The Queen [1998] HCA 61; (1998) 195 CLR 606 Green v R; Quinn v R [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462 HG v The Queen [1999] HCA 2; (1999) 197 CLR 414 HML v The Queen [2008] HCA 16; (2008) 235 CLR 334 Johnson v R (2004) 78 ALJR 616 Kanaan v R [2006] NSWCCA 109 KJR v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 165; (2007) 173 A Crim R 226 KRI v The Queen [2011] VSCA 127; (2011) 207 A Crim R 552 Magnuson v R [2013] NSWCCA 50 Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59; 36 A Crim R 468 Morton v The Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Ltd (1951) 83 CLR 402 Papakosmas v The Queen [1999] HCA 37; (1999) 196 CLR 297 Pavitt v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 88; (2007) 169 A Crim R 452 Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610 Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107 PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84 R v Berrigan (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 7 October 1994, unreported) R v Courtney-Smith (No 2) (1990) 48 A Crim R 49 R v Gale; R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174; (2012) 217 A Crim R 487 R v Hammond [2000] NSWCCA 540 R v Holder & Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245; (1983) 13 A Crim R 375 R v Kneebone [1999] NSWCCA 279; (1999) 47 NSWLR 450 R v Le [2002] NSWCCA 186; (2002) 54 NSWLR 474 R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290; (2001) 52 NSWLR 82 R v Meher [2004] NSWCCA 355 R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272; 164 A Crim R 481 R v Morgan (1990) 30 NSWLR 543 R v Ryan (No 7) [2012] NSWSC 1160; (2012) 218 A Crim R 384 R v Souleyman (1996) 40 NSWLR 712 R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 54 R v Velevski (No 2) (1997) 93 A Crim R 420 R v Veverka [1978] 1 NSWLR 478 R v Whitmore [1999] NSWCCA 247; (1999) 109 A Crim R 51 R v WRC [2002] NSWCCA 210; (2002) 130 A Crim R 89 R v XY [2010] NSWCCA 181; (2010) 79 NSWLR 629 SGJ v R; KU v R [2008] NSWCCA 258 Shanahan v Scott (1957) 96 CLR 245 Sutton v The Queen [1984] HCA 5; (1984) 152 CLR 528 Thompson v The Queen [1989] HCA 30; (1989) 169 CLR 1 Texts Cited: J D Heydon, Cross on Evidence, (9th Aust ed 2013) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Appeal against conviction Philip William Doyle (Appellant) Crown (Respondent) Appeal against sentence Crown (Appellant) Philip William Doyle (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T A Game SC, G A Bashir and P Dwyer (Philip William Doyle) M Cinque (Crown) Solicitors: Uther Webster & Evans (Philip William Doyle) S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) File Number(s): 2009/194799 Publication restriction: Non-publication orders in respect of all complainants excluding Mark Lawrence, all witnesses the naming of whom could identify the complainant, all witnesses who were juveniles at the time of an offence and the witness MB. Decision under appeal Jurisdiction: 9101 Date of Decision: 2012-08-24 00:00:00 Before: Woods QC DCJ File Number(s): 2009/194799