DV v R [2017] NSWCCA 276

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: DV v R [2017] NSWCCA 276 Hearing dates: 25 September 2017 Date of orders: 23 November 2017 Decision date: 23 November 2017 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Latham J at [241]; N Adams J at [250] Decision: (1) Leave to rely upon conviction ground of appeal 1 is refused. (2) Leave to rely upon conviction ground of appeal 2 is granted but the appeal is dismissed. (3) Leave to appeal against sentence granted but the appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction and sentence appeals – applicant convicted of twelve out of fourteen charges – eight counts of sexual intercourse with a child and four counts of aggravated indecent assault – whether error in judge's directions as to complaint – whether miscarriage of justice occasioned by absence of fresh evidence due to absence of important evidence – whether evidence fresh – whether evidence credible – whether a significant possibility that reasonable jury would have acquitted applicant – evidence not fresh – evidence not credible – no significant possibility that jury acting reasonably would have acquitted the applicant – conviction appeal dismissed – SENTENCE APPEAL – whether proper assessment of objective seriousness of offences – whether aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive – leave to appeal against sentence granted but sentence appeal dismissed. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 59, 61, 66, 78 Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 (NSW) – Schedule 1 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sex Offences) Act 2015 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 – ss 21A, 53A Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – ss 66(1) and (2) Cases Cited: AK v R [2016] NSWCCA 238 AL v Regina [2017] NSWCCA 34 ALS v R [2013] NSWCCA 63 Aouad and El-Zayat v R [2011] NSWCCA 61 BIP v R [2011] NSWCCA 224 Bland v R [2014] NSWCCA 82 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176 Delaney v R; R v Delaney [2013] NSWCCA 150 Dent v R [2017] NSWCCA 166 Cook v R [2010] NSWCCA 191 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Franklin v R [2016] NSWCCA 319 Gal v R [2015] NSWCCA 242 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Hong v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 242 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR Ith v R [2012] NSWCCA 70 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118 Magnuson v R [2013] NSWCCA 50 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259; [1989] HCA 35 MLP v R [2014] NSWCCA 183 MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260 Papakosmas v The Queen [1999] HCA 37; 196 CLR 297 R v Abou-Chabake [2004] NSWCCA 356, 149 A Crim R 417 R v Abusafiah (1991) 24 NSWLR 531 R v Brown [2012] NSWCCA 199 R v Ejefekaire [2016] NSWCCA 308 R v Fuge (2001) 123 A Crim R 310 R v Nakash [2017] NSWCCA 196 R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172 Ratten v R [1974] HCA 35; 131 CLR 510 Simpson v R [2014] NSWCCA 23 Tran v R [2014] NSWCCA 32 Van Beelen v The Queen [2017] HCA 48 WC v R [2016] NSWCCA 173 Category: Principal judgment Parties: DV – Applicant Regina – Respondent Representation: Counsel: H Dhanji SC – Applicant Ms H Roberts - Respondent