Hamilton (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 80

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hamilton (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 80 Hearing dates: 5 February 2020 Date of orders: 27 April 2020 Decision date: 27 April 2020 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]; Adamson J at [80]; Beech-Jones J at [86] Decision: (1) Refuse the applicant leave under Rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to raise grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal; (2) Grant the applicant leave to raise ground 3 but dismiss the appeal; (3) Pursuant to s 28A(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 vary the sentence imposed on the applicant by Williams DCJ on 17 May 2019 such that: (i) the applicant's aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months will commence on 27 April 2020 and expire on 26 October 2024; (ii) the applicant's non parole period of 2 years and 8 months will expire on 26 December 2022 and he will be first eligible for release on parole on 27 December 2022. Catchwords: CRIME – evidence from multiple complainants of sexual offences – trial judge ruled evidence admissible but not cross-admissible for tendency purposes – whether an anti-tendency direction was required – whether trial miscarried as a result of the direction not being given – relevance of the conduct of defence counsel – r 4 Criminal Appeal Rules CRIME – character evidence – whether trial miscarried as a result of the admission and use of bad character evidence – evidence led by or with the concurrence of defence counsel – legitimate forensic decisions – r 4 Criminal Appeal Rules

CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – trial turned on the jury's assessment of the credit of the principal witnesses – open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Rules Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266 Attorney General (NSW) v Martin [2015] NSWSC 1372 BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275; [1997] HCA 47 De Jesus v The Queen [1986] HCA 5; (1986) 61 ALJR 1 Decision restricted [2019] NSWCCA 166 Decision restricted [2019] NSWCCA 234 Decision restricted [2019] NSWCCA 276 DJV v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 272; (2008) 200 A Crim R 206 Erohin v R [2006] NSWCCA 102 GD v R [2018] NSWCCA 18 Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15 Hilton v Legal Profession Admission Board [2017] NSWCA 232 Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292; [1988] HCA 50 Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20 James v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 475; [2014] HCA 6 Jiang v R [2010] NSWCCA 277 KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; [2001] HCA 11 Lane v The Queen (2018) 92 ALJR 689; [2018] HCA 28 Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30 Lyndon v R [2014] NSWCCA 112 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 McKell v The Queen (2019) 264 CLR 307; [2019] HCA 5 MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37 Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531; [2012] HCA 29 Pell v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 394; [2020] HCA 12 Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; [1971] HCA 20 Perish v The Queen (2016) 92 NSWLR 161; [2016] NSWCCA 89 R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 R v Bauer (a pseudonym) [2018] HCA 40; (2018) 92 ALJR 846 R v BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241; [2002] NSWCCA 60 R v Hamilton (a pseudonym) [2019] NSWDC 382 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 R v Roberts (2001) 53 NSWLR 138; [2001] NSWCCA 163 Roach v The Queen (2011) 242 CLR 610; [2011] HCA 12 Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42 Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528; [1984] HCA 5 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46 Toalepai v R [2009] NSWCCA 270 Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365; [1988] HCA 6 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Hamilton (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: D Randle (Applicant) C Curtis (Respondent)