Bridger v R [2022] NSWCCA 125

Bridger v R [2022] NSWCCA 125

The appeal failed because there was a rational basis for the jury's different verdicts and non-verdict. The jury could accept KD's evidence and be satisfied that the physical elements and absence of consent were proved, while treating the applicant's mental state differently for different counts. Count 3 was qualitatively different because it involved insertion of a cold object into KD's vagina and KD flinched, which could communicate aversion; the jury could therefore be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was reckless as to consent or had no reasonable grounds for believing KD consented. The same certainty was not required for count 1 or the other counts, where the jury...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction Pursuant to S 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'indecent Assault' 'consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'indecent Assault' 'consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts']

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

Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction Pursuant to S 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdict of guilty on count 3 was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to all the evidence." "Whether the verdict of guilty on count 3 was inconsistent with the jury's inability to reach a verdict on count 1 and the verdicts of not guilty on counts 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7." 'Whether there was a rational basis for the different verdicts and non-verdict.' "Whether the trial judge's direction about the jury's ability to return different verdicts affected the rationale for the verdicts."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because there was a rational basis for the jury's different verdicts and non-verdict. The jury could accept KD's evidence and be satisfied that the physical elements and absence of consent were proved, while treating the applicant's mental state differently for different counts. Count 3 was qualitatively different because it involved insertion of a cold object into KD's vagina and KD flinched, which could communicate aversion; the jury could therefore be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was reckless as to consent or had no reasonable grounds for believing KD consented. The same certainty was not required for count 1 or the other counts, where the jury...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']