Drew Anthony Moffitt v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 73

Drew Anthony Moffitt v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 73

The guilty verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 4 were reconcilable with the acquittal on count 3. Counts 1, 2 and 4 had independent corroboration, including complaints, medical and forensic evidence, and evidence concerning temazepam, whereas count 3 lacked comparable corroboration, was not explicitly complained of in the early accounts, and was denied by the appellant in his ERISP. It was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on counts 1, 2 and 4 while having a reasonable doubt about anal penetration alleged in count 3; the verdicts were not inconsistent, unsafe or unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['inconsistent Verdicts' 'unsafe and Unreasonable Convictions' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'detain With Intent to Hold for Sexual Gratification' 'administering a Stupefying Drug With Intent to Enable Sexual Assault']
['criminal Law' 'sexual Offences' 'criminal Appeals'] ['inconsistent Verdicts' 'unsafe and Unreasonable Convictions' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'detain With Intent to Hold for Sexual Gratification' 'administering a Stupefying Drug With Intent to Enable Sexual Assault']

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 Convictions in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent because the appellant was acquitted on count 3 but convicted on counts 1, 2 and 4." 'Whether the convictions were unsafe, unsatisfactory or unreasonable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The guilty verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 4 were reconcilable with the acquittal on count 3. Counts 1, 2 and 4 had independent corroboration, including complaints, medical and forensic evidence, and evidence concerning temazepam, whereas count 3 lacked comparable corroboration, was not explicitly complained of in the early accounts, and was denied by the appellant in his ERISP. It was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on counts 1, 2 and 4 while having a reasonable doubt about anal penetration alleged in count 3; the verdicts were not inconsistent, unsafe or unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.']