R v Jandamarra (A pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 424

R v Jandamarra (A pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 424

The accused was acquitted because the Crown did not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Count 1 failed after the complainant did not assert penetration in oral evidence and a directed verdict of not guilty was entered. Count 3 failed because of marked variation between the complainant's interview and oral evidence and the Court was not satisfied that any touching above the knee was for sexual gratification. For counts 2, 4 and 5, although the judge did not disbelieve the complainant, he also did not disbelieve the accused, who denied wrongdoing, and the evidence did not satisfy the Court to the highest standard of proof.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Judge Alone Trial / Verdict After Trial
Outcome
The accused is found not guilty on all counts.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse With Child Under 10 Years' 'indecent Assault of Child Under 16 Years' 'judge Alone Trial' 'burden of Proof' 'complaint Evidence' 'single Witness Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['sexual Intercourse With Child Under 10 Years' 'indecent Assault of Child Under 16 Years' 'judge Alone Trial' 'burden of Proof' 'complaint Evidence' 'single Witness Evidence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Judge Alone Trial / Verdict After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant under s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed indecent assaults on the complainant under s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.' "Whether the complainant's evidence and complaint evidence could safely support findings of guilt beyond reasonable doubt." "Whether the accused's evidence was to be rejected as a reasonably possible version of events."]

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was acquitted because the Crown did not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Count 1 failed after the complainant did not assert penetration in oral evidence and a directed verdict of not guilty was entered. Count 3 failed because of marked variation between the complainant's interview and oral evidence and the Court was not satisfied that any touching above the knee was for sexual gratification. For counts 2, 4 and 5, although the judge did not disbelieve the complainant, he also did not disbelieve the accused, who denied wrongdoing, and the evidence did not satisfy the Court to the highest standard of proof.

Court Disposition

The accused is found not guilty on all counts.

Orders

  • ['Verdict of acquittal entered for count 1.' 'Verdict of acquittal entered for count 3.' 'Verdicts of acquittal entered for counts 2, 4 and 5.']