Smee v R [2024] NSWCCA 121

Smee v R [2024] NSWCCA 121

The trial judge's direction incorrectly suggested that substantial intoxication automatically negated consent rather than being a relevant factor for the jury to consider. This misdirection gave rise to a real chance that the jury could have misunderstood the law, establishing a miscarriage of justice and requiring that the conviction be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Parties
Applicant: Jayden Smee; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Consent, Substantial Intoxication, Jury Directions, Appeal Procedure, Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Consent Substantial Intoxication Jury Directions Appeal Procedure Miscarriage of Justice

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jayden Smee

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Relevance of substantial intoxication to consent under s 61HE of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether misdirection was given to the jury regarding consent and intoxication
  3. 3 Whether the misdirection led to a miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's direction incorrectly suggested that substantial intoxication automatically negated consent rather than being a relevant factor for the jury to consider. This misdirection gave rise to a real chance that the jury could have misunderstood the law, establishing a miscarriage of justice and requiring that the conviction be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal, to the extent necessary.
  • Appeal upheld.