Citation: Regina v Najjarin [2001] NSWCCA 46
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 1 March 2001
Judge(s): Ipp AJA, Simpson J, Carruthers AJ
Background
The appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court on three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The complainant was a woman who had been in a relationship with the appellant and, at the relevant times, was the mother of his child. She gave evidence that the appellant punched and kicked her on one occasion and, on a separate occasion weeks later, punched her and then struck her twice with a baseball bat.
The appellant denied all three assaults. For the first incident, he relied on an alibi, contending he had spent the entire day with another woman and had driven her to hospital that night when she gave birth. For the second and third incidents, he denied the complainant was even residing at the relevant address.
The complainant was cross-examined over two days. Points raised included inconsistencies in her evidence, her delay in reporting the assaults to police, her failure to seek medical attention, and an allegation that she had fabricated the charges out of resentment after the appellant ended their relationship.
Legal Issues
- Whether the jury verdicts were supportable by the evidence, or whether the convictions were unsafe under the principles in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
- Whether, given the complainant was the only direct witness against the appellant, the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt
Decision
The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was ample evidence to support all three convictions. The complainant gave detailed and graphic testimony about each assault, and the jury were properly directed that she was the only direct witness against the appellant.
The Court noted that the complainant's explanation for her delay in reporting to police, namely that she was afraid of the appellant, was not inherently improbable, and the jury were entitled to accept it. The defence allegation that she was motivated by revenge was put to her in cross-examination and rejected by the jury.
Corroborating evidence on the question of the complainant's residence at the relevant address came from her mother and a further witness. Internal inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, and the conflicts between her account and those of defence witnesses, were all drawn to the jury's attention and resolved against the appellant. The Court found those matters did not give rise to any reasonable doubt of the kind described in M v The Queen.
The Court concluded that, having had the advantage of seeing and hearing all witnesses, the jury were entitled to believe the complainant beyond reasonable doubt, and no basis existed to disturb the verdicts.
Orders Made
- Appeal dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A conviction resting solely on the evidence of a single complainant is not thereby unsafe, provided the jury are properly directed and it is open to them to accept that evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 and confirmed that inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence, conflicts with defence witnesses, and the absence of medical evidence are matters for the jury to weigh rather than automatic grounds for setting aside a verdict.
- Sufficient evidence existed to support all three counts even where the appellant advanced a complete alibi and denied the complainant's version in its entirety.
- Prior consistent statements admitted under s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995, on the authority of R v DJT [1999] NSWCCA 22, may be used to rebut a suggestion of recent fabrication; no challenge was made to those rulings in this appeal.
- A complainant's delay in reporting assaults and failure to seek medical attention do not necessarily undermine the reliability of their evidence, particularly where a plausible explanation for the delay is accepted by the jury.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 108(3)
Cases
- R v DJT [1999] NSWCCA 22
- M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487