R v GDM [2002] NSWCCA 261

R v GDM [2002] NSWCCA 261

By majority, the Court held that the convictions on counts 2, 3 and 5 were not unreasonable. The jury had been properly directed to consider each count separately and to take any doubts about the complainant's reliability on one count into account when considering other counts. The acquittals, including on counts 8 and 9, did not require the conclusion that the jury rejected the complainant's credibility generally, and there were specific evidentiary difficulties with those counts. Having considered the whole of the evidence, including the complainant's evidence and the admissions evidence, it remained open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on counts 2, 3 and 5.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by majority.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault Charges' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'delay in Complaint' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Assault Charges' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'delay in Complaint' 'jury Directions']

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 to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdicts of guilty on counts 2, 3 and 5 were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.' "Whether acquittals on other counts, particularly counts 8 and 9, required the guilty verdicts to be set aside because they indicated rejection of the complainant's credibility." "Whether delay in complaint, lack of specific corroboration and the evidence about the appellant's injuries made the convictions unsafe."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the convictions on counts 2, 3 and 5 were not unreasonable. The jury had been properly directed to consider each count separately and to take any doubts about the complainant's reliability on one count into account when considering other counts. The acquittals, including on counts 8 and 9, did not require the conclusion that the jury rejected the complainant's credibility generally, and there were specific evidentiary difficulties with those counts. Having considered the whole of the evidence, including the complainant's evidence and the admissions evidence, it remained open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on counts 2, 3 and 5.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed by majority.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']