JL v R [2023] NSWCCA 99

JL v R [2023] NSWCCA 99

The appeal was dismissed as the jury's verdicts were open having regard to the evidence and the jury was entitled to accept key aspects of the complainant's evidence while rejecting minor inaccuracies. The Liberato direction given was not defective because the applicant's interview did not provide a competing positive version of events requiring the third Da Silva component. The sentencing judge took into account the totality principle and did not err. No grounds of appeal were established.

Parties
Applicant: JL; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Substantive Appeal Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; extension of time and leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Appeals Against Conviction, Child Sexual Offences, Unreasonable Verdict, Jury Directions (liberato Direction), Totality Principle in Sentencing
Criminal Law Appeals Against Conviction Child Sexual Offences Unreasonable Verdict Jury Directions (liberato Direction) Totality Principle in Sentencing

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JL

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Substantive Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence
  2. 2 Whether there was error in the form/content of the Liberato direction provided to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge erred in the application of the totality principle given prior Local Court sentences

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed as the jury's verdicts were open having regard to the evidence and the jury was entitled to accept key aspects of the complainant's evidence while rejecting minor inaccuracies. The Liberato direction given was not defective because the applicant's interview did not provide a competing positive version of events requiring the third Da Silva component. The sentencing judge took into account the totality principle and did not err. No grounds of appeal were established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; extension of time and leave to appeal granted

Orders

  • Time for leave to appeal extended
  • Leave to appeal granted