AM v R [2011] NSWCCA 237

AM v R [2011] NSWCCA 237

The trial judge's directions on recklessness correctly stated a lawful method of proving the appellant's knowledge of non-consent under s 61HA and were properly left to the jury. On the whole of the evidence, including the complainant's evidence and the recorded telephone conversation, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty, and the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction After Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'indecent Assault' 'consent' 'recklessness as to Consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'indecent Assault' 'consent' 'recklessness as to Consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'jury Directions']

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 to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that there was evidence on which it could find that the appellant was reckless as to the complainant's consent to sexual intercourse." 'Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that it could find the appellant guilty because he was reckless as to his belief that the complainant had consented.' "Whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable, or could not be supported, having regard to the evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's directions on recklessness correctly stated a lawful method of proving the appellant's knowledge of non-consent under s 61HA and were properly left to the jury. On the whole of the evidence, including the complainant's evidence and the recorded telephone conversation, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty, and the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']