Attwater v R; Maris v R [2021] NSWCCA 17

Attwater v R; Maris v R [2021] NSWCCA 17

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed because: (1) the jury were properly directed not to use lies as evidence of guilt, and any risk of confusion was dispelled by clear directions; (2) the verdicts were open on the evidence, including that the complainant was substantially intoxicated and unable to consent, and both applicants were aware or reckless to absence of consent; (3) sentencing errors alleged were not made out—the findings and sentences were open to the judge on the evidence, and the sentences imposed reflected the seriousness and circumstances of the offending.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment After Conviction and Sentence in Supreme Court
Outcome
Conviction and sentence appeals dismissed; leave to appeal granted where necessary
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'aggravated Sexual Assault' 'manslaughter' 'hinder Discovery of Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'assessment of Intoxication' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'sentencing Principles']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'aggravated Sexual Assault' 'manslaughter' 'hinder Discovery of Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'assessment of Intoxication' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'sentencing Principles']

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 Judgment After Conviction and Sentence in Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was an error in directions to the jury concerning the use of evidence of lies by the accused' 'Whether the convictions for aggravated sexual assault, manslaughter, and hindering investigation were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence' 'Whether the trial judge erred in findings regarding the level of intoxication of the complainant and the assessment of consent' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in considering or failing to consider planning, seriousness, delay, extra-curial punishment, post-offence conduct, prospects of rehabilitation, or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed because: (1) the jury were properly directed not to use lies as evidence of guilt, and any risk of confusion was dispelled by clear directions; (2) the verdicts were open on the evidence, including that the complainant was substantially intoxicated and unable to consent, and both applicants were aware or reckless to absence of consent; (3) sentencing errors alleged were not made out—the findings and sentences were open to the judge on the evidence, and the sentences imposed reflected the seriousness and circumstances of the offending.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence appeals dismissed; leave to appeal granted where necessary

Orders

  • ['An extension of time is granted to the applicant Maris to file his application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence' 'To the extent that leave is necessary, leave is granted to the applicants to appeal against conviction' 'In each case, the appeal is dismissed' 'Leave is granted to the applicants to...