Stevens v R [2015] NSWCCA 235

Stevens v R [2015] NSWCCA 235

The later evidence of the complainant at the third trial was not fresh evidence because it was available to the applicant at the second trial if counsel had asked the relevant questions, and the decision not to cross-examine expansively was a tactical decision. In any event, the later evidence was not sufficiently cogent to show innocence, create a reasonable doubt, or make it likely that the jury would have acquitted. On the unreasonable verdict ground, despite valid criticisms of the Crown case, the complainant's evidence was not inherently incredible, her prompt complaints of gang rape and the corroborative evidence of Ms Caldwell and especially Ms Thomas supported the prosecution...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Eight Convictions for Sexual Offences From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'fresh Evidence' 'sexual Offences' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'fresh Evidence' 'sexual Offences' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Eight Convictions for Sexual Offences From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdicts on counts one to eight were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.' 'Whether evidence given by the complainant at a later trial was fresh evidence or new evidence justifying verdicts of acquittal or a new trial.' "Whether the absence of the later evidence from the applicant's trial amounted to a miscarriage of justice."]

Ratio Decidendi

The later evidence of the complainant at the third trial was not fresh evidence because it was available to the applicant at the second trial if counsel had asked the relevant questions, and the decision not to cross-examine expansively was a tactical decision. In any event, the later evidence was not sufficiently cogent to show innocence, create a reasonable doubt, or make it likely that the jury would have acquitted. On the unreasonable verdict ground, despite valid criticisms of the Crown case, the complainant's evidence was not inherently incredible, her prompt complaints of gang rape and the corroborative evidence of Ms Caldwell and especially Ms Thomas supported the prosecution...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']