R v AT [2000] NSWCCA 342

R v AT [2000] NSWCCA 342

The convictions could not stand because the combination of insufficient jury directions about delay and the unreasonableness of the verdicts in light of inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence deprived the appellant of a fair trial. Where the jury acquitted on two counts but convicted on others, all dependent on the complainant’s credibility, the guilty verdicts were inconsistent and not open to the jury on the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Convictions and sentences quashed. Judgments of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
['unreasonable Verdicts' 'sexual Offences' 'delay in Complaint' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law'] ['unreasonable Verdicts' 'sexual Offences' 'delay in Complaint' 'admissibility of Evidence' '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 / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of the complainant's lack of sexual experience was inadmissible under s 409B of the Crimes Act" 'Whether failure to lead certain evidence resulted in miscarriage of justice' 'Whether failure to direct the jury adequately about delay in complaint resulted in unfairness' 'Whether verdicts of guilty were unreasonable']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions could not stand because the combination of insufficient jury directions about delay and the unreasonableness of the verdicts in light of inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence deprived the appellant of a fair trial. Where the jury acquitted on two counts but convicted on others, all dependent on the complainant’s credibility, the guilty verdicts were inconsistent and not open to the jury on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Convictions and sentences quashed. Judgments of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • ['The appeals should be allowed.' 'The convictions and sentences be quashed.' 'Judgments of acquittal be entered.']