Ingham v R [2011] NSWCCA 88

Ingham v R [2011] NSWCCA 88

Reference to the potential for majority verdicts before s 55F Jury Act preconditions are satisfied does not in itself undermine the Black direction or the requirement for unanimity, provided the trial judge does not instruct the jury that majority verdicts are imminent or inevitable. The sentencing judge erred in treating lawful presence and sexual gratification as aggravating, and misapplied the standard non-parole period for s 61M(2), requiring resentencing for counts 3 and 8 only.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted. Sentences for counts 3 and 8 quashed and re-sentenced; other sentences confirmed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'jury Directions' 'majority Verdicts' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'sexual Offences Against Children']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'jury Directions' 'majority Verdicts' 'standard Non Parole Periods' 'sexual Offences Against Children']

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 / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether jury directions undermined the applicant's common law right to a unanimous verdict prior to s 55F Jury Act preconditions being met" "Whether the trial judge's reference to majority verdicts was erroneous or undermined the Black direction" 'Whether sentencing judge erred in construction or application of standard non-parole period regime' 'Whether certain factors were wrongly treated as aggravating in sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

Reference to the potential for majority verdicts before s 55F Jury Act preconditions are satisfied does not in itself undermine the Black direction or the requirement for unanimity, provided the trial judge does not instruct the jury that majority verdicts are imminent or inevitable. The sentencing judge erred in treating lawful presence and sexual gratification as aggravating, and misapplied the standard non-parole period for s 61M(2), requiring resentencing for counts 3 and 8 only.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted. Sentences for counts 3 and 8 quashed and re-sentenced; other sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Apart from sentences for counts 3 and 8, all District Court sentences confirmed.' 'Sentences for counts 3 and 8 quashed.' 'For count 3: non-parole period of 5 years from 20 October 2006 plus 1 year and 8 months from 20 October 2011...