Krojs v R [2022] NSWCCA 209

Krojs v R [2022] NSWCCA 209

Leave was required and granted, but the appeal failed because the tendency evidence was capable of showing a sexual interest in females under 16 years and action on that interest, and had significant probative value; the prosecutor's conduct did not render the trial unfair; the guilty verdict on count 2 was open despite the acquittal on count 1 because the jury could have been unsatisfied only that the applicant knew the complainant did not consent; and the sentencing judge's findings of physical coercion and pressure were consistent with the verdicts and did not breach the De Simoni principle.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the District Court NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'tendency Evidence' 'prosecutorial Conduct' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'de Simoni Principle' 'sexual Intercourse With a Child']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'tendency Evidence' 'prosecutorial Conduct' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'de Simoni Principle' 'sexual Intercourse With a Child']

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 and Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the District Court NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether tendency evidence of the applicant's consensual sexual relationship with a female under 16 years was wrongly admitted." "Whether the Crown Prosecutor's questioning of witnesses, cross-examination of the applicant, or final address occasioned a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the guilty verdict on count 2 was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, including in light of the acquittal on count 1.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred in making findings about the forceful circumstances of the sexual intercourse in light of the jury's verdicts."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was required and granted, but the appeal failed because the tendency evidence was capable of showing a sexual interest in females under 16 years and action on that interest, and had significant probative value; the prosecutor's conduct did not render the trial unfair; the guilty verdict on count 2 was open despite the acquittal on count 1 because the jury could have been unsatisfied only that the applicant knew the complainant did not consent; and the sentencing judge's findings of physical coercion and pressure were consistent with the verdicts and did not breach the De Simoni principle.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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