AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
3
Court of Criminal Appeal 3 September 2003

R v Kesisyan

[2003] NSWCCA 259

Sexual offences
LONGMAN DIRECTIONS PURPOSE FORM AND CONTENT NO SPECIFIC FORM OF WORDS REQUIRED CREDIBILITY EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCE.

Citation: R v Kesisyan [2003] NSWCCA 259
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 3 September 2003
Judge(s): Meagher JA, Sully J, Kirby J

Background

The appellant was convicted in the District Court of indecent assault and sexual assault of a child under sixteen years of age who was in his authority as her stepfather. The complainant alleged the offending began when she was ten years old and continued across several years into the early 1990s. The appellant's defence was that the complainant's account was entirely false.

The trial judge delivered a detailed charge to the jury. On appeal, the appellant challenged the adequacy of that charge on two grounds: the sufficiency of the so-called Longman direction addressing delay, and the admissibility of medical evidence led by the Crown.

  • Whether the trial judge's Longman direction was adequate in the circumstances, given the lengthy delay between the alleged offending and the complaint reaching authorities
  • Whether the trial judge erred by failing to specifically direct the jury that a lie told once and then repeated remains a lie
  • Whether medical evidence of a physical condition consistent with the complainant's account was properly admitted at trial

Decision

On the first ground, the Court found the Longman direction given by the trial judge was adequate. The purpose of a Longman direction is to alert the jury that delay must not unfairly prejudice the accused's right to have the full evidence considered on the question of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Meagher JA held that no specific form of words is required, provided the essential purpose of the direction is fulfilled. The Court found that the trial judge's charge substantially captured what the direction requires.

The complaint that the judge failed to explicitly identify the complainant's age at the time of the offences, or warn the jury separately about the effect of delay on credibility, was rejected. The Court found there was ample material before the jury on both points, and that the judge had gone to considerable lengths to emphasise the need for the complainant's evidence to be both truthful and accurate.

The further complaint about the repetition of lies also failed. The appellant argued the judge should have told the jury explicitly that repeating a lie does not make it true. Meagher JA rejected this as unnecessary, describing it as a self-evidently obvious proposition that no jury requires to be told. The Court also noted that no such objection had been raised at trial by experienced defence counsel, and no Longman point was taken at trial at all.

On the second ground, the Court held the medical evidence was properly admitted. A doctor had examined the complainant and found a physical condition consistent with anal penetration, though he could not confirm the cause or duration. The Court held this evidence went directly to the credibility of the complainant's account and was relevant, even if not conclusive. Relevance is sufficient to render evidence admissible, and no argument was advanced that any prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

Orders Made

  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • A Longman direction does not require any fixed or prescribed form of words. Provided the substance of the direction conveys the essential principles to the jury, the direction will be sufficient.
  • Sully J, who had been a member of the bench in the related decision of BWT, emphasised that while no exact form of words is mandated, trial judges must ensure their charge captures the substance of the principles established in that case.
  • Relevant evidence remains admissible even where it is not conclusive. Medical evidence consistent with a complainant's account supported her credibility and the Court found no basis on which the trial judge could properly have excluded it.
  • In dismissing the Longman ground, the Court noted that the objections had not been raised at trial by experienced defence counsel, reinforcing the significance of contemporaneous objection when challenging the adequacy of judicial directions.
  • No obligation arises on a trial judge to direct a jury on propositions regarded as self-evidently obvious, such as the truism that repeating a lie does not convert it into the truth.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Cases:
- Longman v The Queen (High Court, exact citation not provided in judgment)
- Doggett (High Court, exact citation not provided in judgment)
- Crampton (High Court, exact citation not provided in judgment)
- BWT (NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, exact citation not provided in judgment)

Note: The judgment does not set out full citations for the cases referenced. Practitioners should locate these through standard legal databases.