JN v R [2019] NSWCCA 287

JN v R [2019] NSWCCA 287

The Court allowed the appeal on ground 1 because, after independently assessing the whole of the evidence, the cumulative internal inconsistencies, improbabilities and directly contradictory evidence concerning both complainants meant that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt on the counts of conviction. Grounds 2 and 3 were dismissed because the failure to call additional family witnesses did not, in the conduct of the trial as a whole, cause a miscarriage of justice, and the late amendment of the indictment, to which experienced defence counsel consented for perceived forensic reasons, was not shown to have caused a miscarriage of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Convictions Entered After Jury Trial in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed on ground 1; grounds 2 and 3 dismissed; convictions set aside and verdicts of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
['unreasonable Verdict' 'historical Sexual Offences' 'credibility and Reliability of Complainants' 'failure to Interview or Call Witnesses' 'amendment of Indictment' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'tendency Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['unreasonable Verdict' 'historical Sexual Offences' 'credibility and Reliability of Complainants' 'failure to Interview or Call Witnesses' 'amendment of Indictment' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'tendency Evidence']

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

Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Convictions Entered After Jury Trial in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16 were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.' 'Whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice because important witnesses were neither interviewed by police nor called in the prosecution case.' 'Whether the substantial amendment of the indictment at the close of the Crown case made the trial irregular or unfair and caused a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal on ground 1 because, after independently assessing the whole of the evidence, the cumulative internal inconsistencies, improbabilities and directly contradictory evidence concerning both complainants meant that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt on the counts of conviction. Grounds 2 and 3 were dismissed because the failure to call additional family witnesses did not, in the conduct of the trial as a whole, cause a miscarriage of justice, and the late amendment of the indictment, to which experienced defence counsel consented for perceived forensic reasons, was not shown to have caused a miscarriage of...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed on ground 1; grounds 2 and 3 dismissed; convictions set aside and verdicts of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed on ground 1.' 'Dismiss grounds 2 and 3.' "Set aside the appellant's conviction on counts 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16 of the amended indictment and in place thereof order that a verdict of acquittal be entered."]