R v Owen [1999] NSWCCA 133

R v Owen [1999] NSWCCA 133

The appeal was dismissed because the acquittal on count 4 was readily explicable by the date period alleged for that count and did not show inconsistency or a compromise verdict; on an independent assessment it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on counts 1 to 3 despite delay, lack of corroboration for counts 1 and 2, and alleged inconsistencies; count 3 was supported by additional tendency/coincidence and corroborative evidence; and the trial judge's directions about absent witnesses were adequate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, convictions affirmed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'acts of Indecency' 'sexual Assault' 'delay in Complaint' 'corroboration Warning' 'failure to Call Witnesses' 'jones V Dunkel Direction']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'acts of Indecency' 'sexual Assault' 'delay in Complaint' 'corroboration Warning' 'failure to Call Witnesses' 'jones V Dunkel Direction']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 1 to 3 were inconsistent with the acquittal on count 4.' 'Whether the verdicts of guilty on counts 1 to 3 were unreasonable and/or not supported by the evidence.' 'Whether delay in complaint and delay in prosecution affected the safety of the convictions.' "Whether the trial judge's directions concerning absent witnesses were deficient."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the acquittal on count 4 was readily explicable by the date period alleged for that count and did not show inconsistency or a compromise verdict; on an independent assessment it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on counts 1 to 3 despite delay, lack of corroboration for counts 1 and 2, and alleged inconsistencies; count 3 was supported by additional tendency/coincidence and corroborative evidence; and the trial judge's directions about absent witnesses were adequate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, convictions affirmed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Convictions affirmed.']