AE v R [2008] NSWCCA 52

AE v R [2008] NSWCCA 52

The conviction on count 11 could not stand because the Court could not discern a rational way to reconcile the guilty verdict on that count with acquittals on counts six to 10 and 12, particularly the differing verdicts on counts nine and 11, and the asserted lie about CJE's presence did not provide independent support for PNE's account. The convictions on counts 14 and 15 could not stand because the trial judge erred in admitting the whole of PNE's evidence as tendency or coincidence evidence: the alleged similarities were unremarkable, the allegations were not substantially and relevantly similar for coincidence reasoning, the possibility of joint concoction was wrongly excluded, and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions on counts 11, 14 and 15 quashed; acquittal substituted on count 11; new trial directed on counts 14 and 15.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable or Inconsistent Verdicts' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'sexual Offences']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable or Inconsistent Verdicts' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'sexual Offences']

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 Against Conviction / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the guilty verdict on count 11 was unreasonable or inconsistent having regard to the acquittals on other counts depending on PNE's evidence." "Whether admission of PNE's evidence as tendency and/or coincidence evidence on the trial of counts 14 and 15 relating to CNE caused an unfair trial or miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the proviso to s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 could be applied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction on count 11 could not stand because the Court could not discern a rational way to reconcile the guilty verdict on that count with acquittals on counts six to 10 and 12, particularly the differing verdicts on counts nine and 11, and the asserted lie about CJE's presence did not provide independent support for PNE's account. The convictions on counts 14 and 15 could not stand because the trial judge erred in admitting the whole of PNE's evidence as tendency or coincidence evidence: the alleged similarities were unremarkable, the allegations were not substantially and relevantly similar for coincidence reasoning, the possibility of joint concoction was wrongly excluded, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions on counts 11, 14 and 15 quashed; acquittal substituted on count 11; new trial directed on counts 14 and 15.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal.' 'Set aside the verdicts and convictions on counts 11, 14 and 15.' 'Substitute a verdict of acquittal on count 11.' 'Direct a new trial on counts 14 and 15.']