Regina v DSA [1999] NSWCCA 35

Regina v DSA [1999] NSWCCA 35

The conviction on count one was quashed because the trial judge erroneously allowed the jury to treat the appellant's inconsistent record of interview account as corroboration, and because the acquittal on count three significantly undermined the complainant's credibility on count one where the alleged events were close in time and the evidence on both counts was not materially different. There was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted, and the evidence was not sufficiently cogent to warrant a new trial, so an acquittal was directed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal directed on count one; no new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['carnal Knowledge' 'corroboration Directions' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'new Trial Discretion']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['carnal Knowledge' 'corroboration Directions' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'new Trial Discretion']

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 in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by allowing the appellant's record of interview account of sexual contact to be treated as corroboration of the complainant's account." "Whether the conviction on count one was unsafe or unsatisfactory because the jury acquitted the appellant on count three despite the complainant's evidence being of similar quality on both counts." 'Whether, after quashing the conviction, the Court should order a new trial or direct an acquittal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction on count one was quashed because the trial judge erroneously allowed the jury to treat the appellant's inconsistent record of interview account as corroboration, and because the acquittal on count three significantly undermined the complainant's credibility on count one where the alleged events were close in time and the evidence on both counts was not materially different. There was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted, and the evidence was not sufficiently cogent to warrant a new trial, so an acquittal was directed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal directed on count one; no new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['The conviction be quashed.' 'The appeal to this court should be allowed.' 'In the exercise of the discretion the Court should not order a new trial but direct the entry of a verdict of acquittal on the first count.']