Victor v R [2024] NSWCCA 122

Victor v R [2024] NSWCCA 122

The appeal against conviction on Counts 1 and 2 was dismissed because the complainants' evidence, though differing in detail, was not fundamentally inconsistent or unreliable, and the jury was entitled to accept it beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal against conviction on Counts 4 and 5 was allowed because, given the circumstantial evidence, absence of proof Mr Victor knew of the existence of the illicit images on his devices, and the possibility of unconscious possession, a reasonable doubt was available, making conviction unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal (nswcca) – Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Convictions quashed on Counts 4 and 5, retrial (re-sentence) ordered on Counts 1 and 2.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'sexual Offences' 'possess Child Abuse Material' 'jury Directions' 'evidence Assessment']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'sexual Offences' 'possess Child Abuse Material' 'jury Directions' 'evidence Assessment']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal (nswcca) – Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether verdicts on Counts 1 and 2 (sexual intercourse without consent) were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence' 'Whether verdicts on Counts 4 and 5 (possess child abuse material) were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence, particularly where the Crown failed to exclude a reasonable possibility of absence of knowledge']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction on Counts 1 and 2 was dismissed because the complainants' evidence, though differing in detail, was not fundamentally inconsistent or unreliable, and the jury was entitled to accept it beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal against conviction on Counts 4 and 5 was allowed because, given the circumstantial evidence, absence of proof Mr Victor knew of the existence of the illicit images on his devices, and the possibility of unconscious possession, a reasonable doubt was available, making conviction unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Convictions quashed on Counts 4 and 5, retrial (re-sentence) ordered on Counts 1 and 2.

Orders

  • ['To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal against conviction on Counts 1 and 2.' 'Allow the appeal against conviction on Counts 4 and 5.' 'Quash the convictions on Counts 4 and 5 and direct the entry of acquittal on those counts.' 'Quash the sentence imposed by Whitford SC DCJ on 12 May...