AB v R [2022] NSWCCA 104

AB v R [2022] NSWCCA 104

The convictions must be quashed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons and did not satisfactorily address key inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly the conflict between the complainant's evidence and that of Ms Van de Vate and Mrs B—issues crucial to the determination of guilt. The failure to explain resolution of these conflicts in the reasons amounted to error of law, and the appellate court was not itself satisfied of the applicant's guilt based solely on the record of the trial. The errors affected both count 1 and, by tendency evidence reasoning, also count 2.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Post Trial (district Court), Appellate Decision (nsw Cca)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Convictions on counts 1 and 2 quashed. New trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'onus of Proof' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'ewen and Murray Directions' 'inconsistent Evidence' 'evidence of Sexualised Conduct' 'complaint Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'onus of Proof' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'ewen and Murray Directions' 'inconsistent Evidence' 'evidence of Sexualised Conduct' 'complaint Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'adequacy of Reasons']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Post Trial (district Court), Appellate Decision (nsw Cca)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge reversed the onus of proof' 'Whether the trial judge failed to take into account inconsistencies in the evidence' 'Whether reasons adequately addressed inconsistencies in evidence' 'Whether evidence of sexualised conduct was properly considered' 'Whether the verdicts were unreasonable']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions must be quashed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons and did not satisfactorily address key inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly the conflict between the complainant's evidence and that of Ms Van de Vate and Mrs B—issues crucial to the determination of guilt. The failure to explain resolution of these conflicts in the reasons amounted to error of law, and the appellate court was not itself satisfied of the applicant's guilt based solely on the record of the trial. The errors affected both count 1 and, by tendency evidence reasoning, also count 2.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Convictions on counts 1 and 2 quashed. New trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'The convictions on counts 1 and 2 on the indictment be quashed.' 'A new trial be ordered.' 'The matter is to be listed in the Arraignments List in the District Court at Sydney on 27 May 2022 at 9:30am.']