Le v R [2020] NSWCCA 238

Le v R [2020] NSWCCA 238

By majority, the Court found it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt for causing grievous bodily harm to the complainant. The applicant's leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed. The discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, absence of supporting evidence, and failure to call Mr Low did not create a reasonable doubt, particularly given the medical evidence and the jury's opportunity to assess credibility. The Court also made a suppression order to protect the complainant's identity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction for Causing Grievous Bodily Harm
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; suppression order made to protect complainant's identity
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'recklessness' 'credibility of Witness' 'assessment of Evidence' 'domestic Violence' 'suppression of Identity']
['criminal Law'] ['conviction Appeal' 'causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'recklessness' 'credibility of Witness' 'assessment of Evidence' 'domestic Violence' 'suppression of Identity']

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 / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction for Causing Grievous Bodily Harm

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdict on count 2 (causing grievous bodily harm) was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence' "Whether the complainant's evidence was reliable enough to sustain guilt beyond reasonable doubt" 'Effect of medical evidence in explaining causation of injury' "Impact of inconsistencies in complainant's account" 'Failure to call material witness (Mr Low)']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court found it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt for causing grievous bodily harm to the complainant. The applicant's leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed. The discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, absence of supporting evidence, and failure to call Mr Low did not create a reasonable doubt, particularly given the medical evidence and the jury's opportunity to assess credibility. The Court also made a suppression order to protect the complainant's identity.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; suppression order made to protect complainant's identity

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.' 'Order, until further order, on the ground in s 8(1)(e) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), that the complainant be referred to by the pseudonym S and not otherwise identified.']