Still v R [2010] NSWCCA 131

Still v R [2010] NSWCCA 131

The charges regarding indecent assault and detain for advantage required proof of absence of consent to different factual elements (detention and sexual activity); the evidence, particularly regarding the complainant's incapacity from intoxication, supported a finding of indecent assault without consent and knowledge or recklessness of the appellant as to that absence of consent. The jury's verdicts were not so inconsistent as to constitute a miscarriage of justice, and there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the conviction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted in relation to Grounds 1, 2 and 4. Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['indecent Assault' 'stealing' 'jury Verdicts' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'no Case to Answer' 'consent']
['criminal Law'] ['indecent Assault' 'stealing' 'jury Verdicts' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'no Case to Answer' 'consent']

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 Conviction Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the conviction for indecent assault was unsafe or unreasonable due to inconsistency with the acquittal on the detain for advantage count' 'Whether there was a case to answer on the indecent assault count' 'Whether the conviction for indecent assault was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The charges regarding indecent assault and detain for advantage required proof of absence of consent to different factual elements (detention and sexual activity); the evidence, particularly regarding the complainant's incapacity from intoxication, supported a finding of indecent assault without consent and knowledge or recklessness of the appellant as to that absence of consent. The jury's verdicts were not so inconsistent as to constitute a miscarriage of justice, and there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the conviction.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted in relation to Grounds 1, 2 and 4. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted in relation to Grounds 1, 2 and 4.' 'The appeal against conviction is dismissed.']