Bryan v R [2007] NSWCCA 351

Bryan v R [2007] NSWCCA 351

The verdicts were not unreasonable. It was open to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence that the relevant contact with the appellant was by the Nokia phone, to find that the complainant was mistaken about the year but accurate about the appellant's conduct, and to rely on the undisputed phone records...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Following Jury Trial in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Legal Topics
['sexual Offences Against Male Aged Under 16' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'time as an Essential Matter in Indictment' 'jury Directions' 'complainant Reliability' 'good Character Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'mobile Phone Text Message Evidence']
['criminal Law and Procedure'] ['sexual Offences Against Male Aged Under 16' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'time as an Essential Matter in Indictment' 'jury Directions' 'complainant Reliability' 'good Character Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'mobile Phone Text Message Evidence']

Source-derived case record

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 Following Jury Trial in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's guilty verdicts on each count were unreasonable having regard to the evidence." "Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the offences occurred within the period alleged in the indictment, 9 June 2000 to 28 February 2001, despite the complainant's evidence placing them in 1999." "Whether inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and the appellant's good character evidence meant the complainant's evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt."]

Ratio Decidendi

The verdicts were not unreasonable. It was open to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence that the relevant contact with the appellant was by the Nokia phone, to find that the complainant was mistaken about the year but accurate about the appellant's conduct, and to rely on the undisputed phone records showing extensive text contact during the charged period, together with appellant's untruths if accepted as consciousness of guilt.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']