Hughes v R [2015] NSWCCA 330. Beazley P, Schmidt J, ... Hughes played a leading role in the popular Australian televisio
Judgment Summary Supreme Court New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Hughes v R [2015] NSWCCA 330 Beazley P, Schmidt J, Button J
The Court of Criminal Appeal has dismissed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence brought by Robert Lindsay Hughes with regard to sexual offences he committed against a number of young girls. The trial under appeal was the subject of a great deal of publicity, due to the fact that Mr Hughes played a leading role in the popular Australian television series “Hey Dad..!” in the 1980s. A large number of grounds of appeal against conviction were argued. In summary, they asserted that the trial should have been permanently stayed due to the amount and intensity of publicity about the matter; that the trial judge should have conducted an extensive voir dire, at which many witnesses should have been cross-examined, prior to the hearing before the jury; that the evidence of a number of the witnesses should not have been admitted as tendency evidence in support of the evidence of other witnesses; that the directions given to the jury about that tendency evidence were erroneous; and that the conduct of the Crown prosecutor in the trial, and the refusal of the trial judge to discharge the jury as a result of it, had each led to a miscarriage of justice. All of those grounds were dismissed. In rejecting the submission that the trial should have been permanently stayed and therefore not proceeded with at all, the Court emphasised that the changes to Australian society wrought by the digital revolution (including the rise of the internet and various forms of social media), and the consequent explosion in publicity about notable criminal trials, should not diminish the commitment of the criminal justice system to trial by jury. The Court also held that it was open to the trial judge to refuse to conduct a voir dire; to admit the evidence as tendency evidence; to direct the jury as he did about that evidence; and to deal with the wrongful things said by the Crown prosecutor by way of very firm directions in the summing-up rather than by way of discharging the jury. In support of the appeal against sentence, it was submitted that, in imposing an aggregate head sentence of imprisonment for 10 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 6 years, his Honour had incorrectly assessed the objective seriousness of some of the offences; insufficiently reflected sentencing practice at the time the offences were committed; not given sufficient weight to the punishment other than imprisonment that Mr Hughes had suffered and would suffer; and wrongly approached the victim impact statements received
This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.
by his Honour. It was also submitted that fresh evidence about the serious mistreatment of Mr Hughes since his imprisonment should lead to a reduction in his sentence. Again, all grounds were dismissed, on the basis that no error was established, either by way of the reasoning of his Honour about any matter, or the length of the sentence ultimately imposed. The Court also found that the fresh evidence should not lead to any reduction in sentence. Nevertheless, the Court of Criminal Appeal requested that the Director of Public Prosecutions refer all of the evidence with regard to the unacceptable mistreatment of Mr Hughes whilst in custody to the Minister and the Commissioner of Corrective Services (NSW).
This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.
