Reeves v R; R v Reeves [2013] NSWCCA 34

Reeves v R; R v Reeves [2013] NSWCCA 34

Despite misdirection as to 'informed consent', the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant did not honestly believe the complainant consented to the nature and extent of the operation (maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent). The verdicts for indecent assault were reasonable for one complainant (CA) but not the other (RF). The original sentences were manifestly inadequate and failed to reflect the totality and seriousness of the offences, warranting resentencing with more appropriately accumulated periods of imprisonment.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Applicant/respondent: Graeme Stephen Reeves
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence, Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against conviction for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent granted and appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal against conviction for two counts of aggravated indecent assault granted; appeal dismissed for one count and allowed for another with verdict of...
Legal Topics
Maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent, Aggravated Indecent Assault, Sentencing, Consent in Medical Assault, Medical Assault, Benefit by Deception
Criminal Law Maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent Aggravated Indecent Assault Sentencing Consent in Medical Assault Medical Assault Benefit by Deception

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 52 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Graeme Stephen Reeves

Applicant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence, Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to consent and lawful excuse in a medical assault context
  2. 2 Whether verdicts for aggravated indecent assault were unreasonable or unsupportable on the evidence
  3. 3 Whether sentencing was manifestly inadequate and failed to reflect objective seriousness or total criminality

Ratio Decidendi

Despite misdirection as to 'informed consent', the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant did not honestly believe the complainant consented to the nature and extent of the operation (maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent). The verdicts for indecent assault were reasonable for one complainant (CA) but not the other (RF). The original sentences were manifestly inadequate and failed to reflect the totality and seriousness of the offences, warranting resentencing with more appropriately accumulated periods of imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against conviction for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent granted and appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal against conviction for two counts of aggravated indecent assault granted; appeal dismissed for one count and allowed for another with verdict of...

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal against conviction for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent (s 33 Crimes Act) granted.
  • Appeal against conviction for maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent dismissed.