DI v R [2023] NSWCCA 293

DI v R [2023] NSWCCA 293

The appellate court, having independently reviewed and assessed the evidence, held that the verdicts that the applicant had committed the offences charged in counts 1, 4, 7 and the alternative counts were unreasonable, due to inconsistencies, contradictions and improbabilities in the complainant's evidence, and because the advantage enjoyed by the trial judge in seeing and hearing the complainant was not capable of resolving a reasonable doubt. The findings were therefore quashed and acquittals entered on the affected counts.

Parties
Applicant: DI; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From District Court Special Hearing Verdict
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; verdicts of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Unreasonable Verdict, Special Hearing, Child Sexual Offences, Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Unreasonable Verdict Special Hearing Child Sexual Offences Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DI

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From District Court Special Hearing Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the findings that the applicant committed certain offences were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in treatment of complaint evidence and compliance with s 21B of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in treatment of forensic disadvantage and compliance with s 21B of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court, having independently reviewed and assessed the evidence, held that the verdicts that the applicant had committed the offences charged in counts 1, 4, 7 and the alternative counts were unreasonable, due to inconsistencies, contradictions and improbabilities in the complainant's evidence, and because the advantage enjoyed by the trial judge in seeing and hearing the complainant was not capable of resolving a reasonable doubt. The findings were therefore quashed and acquittals entered on the affected counts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; verdicts of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • The appeal is allowed.