Bolamatu v R [2003] NSWCCA 58

Bolamatu v R [2003] NSWCCA 58

The acquittal on count 3 and conviction on count 4 were not inconsistent because count 3 required proof of an intention to prevent a police officer from investigating a matter calling for investigation, which was not an ingredient of count 4. The sentence involved no error because the offences were different, the victims were different, each offence was close to the most reprehensible form of that offence, and cumulation was permissible in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['inconsistent Verdicts' 'assaulting a Police Officer Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'use of an Offensive Instrument' 'consecutive Sentences' 'cumulation of Sentences']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['inconsistent Verdicts' 'assaulting a Police Officer Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'use of an Offensive Instrument' 'consecutive Sentences' 'cumulation of Sentences']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdict of not guilty on the charge of using an offensive instrument with intent to prevent police investigation was inconsistent with the verdict of guilty on the alternative charge of assaulting a police officer occasioning actual bodily harm." 'Whether the sentencing judge was justified in making the sentence for assaulting a police officer consecutive on the sentence for the assault on Naomi Bashford.']

Ratio Decidendi

The acquittal on count 3 and conviction on count 4 were not inconsistent because count 3 required proof of an intention to prevent a police officer from investigating a matter calling for investigation, which was not an ingredient of count 4. The sentence involved no error because the offences were different, the victims were different, each offence was close to the most reprehensible form of that offence, and cumulation was permissible in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence refused.']