Collins v R [2020] NSWCCA 198

Collins v R [2020] NSWCCA 198

There was no rational explanation for the acquittals on counts 3, 4 and 5 other than doubts about the complainant's credibility, and those doubts applied equally to counts 1, 2 and 6. The sick day allegations could only have occurred on 1 August 2016 or not at all, but objective evidence contradicted important aspects of the complainant's account. Nothing in the evidence showed that the complainant's evidence was more reliable on the counts of conviction than on the acquitted counts, and there was no corroboration or distinct element that rationally justified different verdicts. Accordingly, the guilty verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 6 could not reasonably be supported by the complainant's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From District Court Convictions
Outcome
Leave to appeal on ground 1 granted; appeal against conviction allowed; convictions on counts 1, 2 and 6 quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'mixed Verdicts on Multiple Sexual Offence Counts' 'child Complainant Evidence' 'longman Direction' 'markuleski Direction']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'mixed Verdicts on Multiple Sexual Offence Counts' 'child Complainant Evidence' 'longman Direction' 'markuleski 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 / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From District Court Convictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's guilty verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 6 were unreasonable or could not be supported in light of the not guilty verdicts on counts 3, 4 and 5." "Whether the acquittals on counts 3, 4 and 5 necessarily diminished the complainant's overall credibility such that the remaining convictions were not open to the jury." "Whether there was any rational explanation for the acquittals other than doubts about the complainant's credibility that applied equally to the counts of conviction."]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no rational explanation for the acquittals on counts 3, 4 and 5 other than doubts about the complainant's credibility, and those doubts applied equally to counts 1, 2 and 6. The sick day allegations could only have occurred on 1 August 2016 or not at all, but objective evidence contradicted important aspects of the complainant's account. Nothing in the evidence showed that the complainant's evidence was more reliable on the counts of conviction than on the acquitted counts, and there was no corroboration or distinct element that rationally justified different verdicts. Accordingly, the guilty verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 6 could not reasonably be supported by the complainant's...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal on ground 1 granted; appeal against conviction allowed; convictions on counts 1, 2 and 6 quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal on ground 1.' 'Allow the appeal against conviction.' 'Quash the convictions on counts 1, 2 and 6 and in lieu thereof enter verdicts of acquittal on those counts.']