Hayne v R [2022] NSWCCA 11

Hayne v R [2022] NSWCCA 11

A miscarriage of justice occurred because the jury was misdirected as to the mental element of the offence, including recklessness and reasonable grounds for belief in consent, and the exclusion of exculpatory evidence was in error. These directions, and the reversal of an earlier evidentiary ruling, could have affected the verdict and thus warranted the quashing of convictions and a new trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed and new trial ordered
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'sexual Assault' 'jury Directions' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'criminal Procedure']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'sexual Assault' 'jury Directions' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'criminal Procedure']

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 / Decision on Appeal From Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether erroneous direction of trial judge as to the legal test in s 61HA(3)(c) of the Crimes Act resulted in a miscarriage of justice' 'Whether admission of evidence in new trial proceedings under s 306I of the Criminal Procedure Act was unfairly prejudicial' 'Whether it was error to exclude or revisit ruling on admissibility of messages under s 130A of the Criminal Procedure Act' 'Whether verdict of the jury was unreasonable']

Ratio Decidendi

A miscarriage of justice occurred because the jury was misdirected as to the mental element of the offence, including recklessness and reasonable grounds for belief in consent, and the exclusion of exculpatory evidence was in error. These directions, and the reversal of an earlier evidentiary ruling, could have affected the verdict and thus warranted the quashing of convictions and a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed and new trial ordered

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the appellant to appeal on grounds 1 and 3.' 'Allow the appeal on those grounds.' "Quash the appellant's convictions and order a new trial." 'Grant leave to appeal on ground 2 but dismiss that ground.' 'Dismiss ground 4.' 'List the proceedings for directions in the District Court at 9.30am on 18...