Regina v Whitehead [2000] NSWCCA 400

Regina v Whitehead [2000] NSWCCA 400

The convictions on counts one and four of the first indictment were unsafe and unsatisfactory because the Crown case essentially depended on the complainant, the jury's acquittal on count five undermined acceptance of his evidence, and there was no basis to treat his evidence on the convicted counts as more reliable. The conviction on the second indictment had to be quashed because the guilty plea was not entered with full knowledge of the facts and appropriate consciousness of guilt, there was a real question to be tried, and the due administration of justice required a new trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Convictions and Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed. Convictions on counts one and four of the first indictment quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered. Conviction on the second indictment quashed, leave granted to withdraw the guilty plea, and a new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdicts' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'acts of Indecency' 'homosexual Intercourse With a Male Person Between Ten and Eighteen Years of Age' 'indecent Assault' 'withdrawal of Guilty Plea' 'new Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdicts' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'acts of Indecency' 'homosexual Intercourse With a Male Person Between Ten and Eighteen Years of Age' 'indecent Assault' 'withdrawal of Guilty Plea' 'new Trial']

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 Convictions and Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on counts one and four of the first indictment were unsafe and unsatisfactory in light of the acquittal on count five and the principles in Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439.' 'Whether the conviction on the second indictment should be quashed and the appellant permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea was entered after imprudent and inappropriate legal advice and without appropriate consciousness of guilt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions on counts one and four of the first indictment were unsafe and unsatisfactory because the Crown case essentially depended on the complainant, the jury's acquittal on count five undermined acceptance of his evidence, and there was no basis to treat his evidence on the convicted counts as more reliable. The conviction on the second indictment had to be quashed because the guilty plea was not entered with full knowledge of the facts and appropriate consciousness of guilt, there was a real question to be tried, and the due administration of justice required a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed. Convictions on counts one and four of the first indictment quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered. Conviction on the second indictment quashed, leave granted to withdraw the guilty plea, and a new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['As to the first indictment: Appeal allowed.' 'As to the first indictment: Convictions on counts one and four quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered.' 'As to the second indictment: Appeal allowed.' 'As to the second indictment: Conviction quashed.' 'As to the second indictment: Leave granted to the appellant to...