Short v R [2019] NSWDC 52

Short v R [2019] NSWDC 52

The evidence of the complainant, Jane, when viewed as a whole, including inconsistencies and lack of detail regarding the alleged acts of touching, does not reach the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt necessary for conviction. The explanations given for inconsistencies did not satisfactorily resolve doubt as to the occurrence of the acts alleged in Counts 1 and 2, thus the prosecution did not discharge its burden.

Parties
Respondent: Regina (Crown); Appellant: Glen Edward Short
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Conviction Appeal / Judgment on Rehearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Appellate Review Rehearing, Evidence Assessment in Sexual Offence Cases, Good Character Evidence, Application of Browne V Dunn Rule
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Appellate Review Rehearing Evidence Assessment in Sexual Offence Cases Good Character Evidence Application of Browne V Dunn Rule

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Respondent

Glen Edward Short

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Conviction Appeal / Judgment on Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's convictions on Counts 1 and 2 for indecent assault were proved beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies and lack of detail in the complainant's evidence affect reliability
  3. 3 Whether the Crown satisfied its obligation in cross-examination (Browne v Dunn)

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the complainant, Jane, when viewed as a whole, including inconsistencies and lack of detail regarding the alleged acts of touching, does not reach the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt necessary for conviction. The explanations given for inconsistencies did not satisfactorily resolve doubt as to the occurrence of the acts alleged in Counts 1 and 2, thus the prosecution did not discharge its burden.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appellant found not guilty on Count 1 (indecent assault, s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900)
  • Appellant found not guilty on Count 2 (indecent assault, s 61M(2) Crimes Act 1900)