R v John William Parbery [2003] NSWCCA 120

The convictions on counts 3, 5, 6, and 7 were unreasonable because the allegations were wholly uncorroborated, involved a significant delay in complaint, lacked supporting explanations for silence, contained implausible elements and uncertainties in the complainant's evidence, and the differences between guilty and not guilty counts were not supported by any material difference in the quality of evidence.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 02 May 2003
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome: conviction set aside; judgment and verdicts of acquittal entered on counts 3, 5, 6, and 7
Legal Topics: ['sexual Assault' 'indecent Assault' 'uncorroborated Evidence' 'jury Verdicts' 'reasonableness of Verdicts']

['criminal Law'] ['sexual Assault' 'indecent Assault' 'uncorroborated Evidence' 'jury Verdicts' 'reasonableness of Verdicts']

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether jury verdicts of guilty were unreasonable in light of the evidence' 'Whether verdicts were inconsistent' 'Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury' 'Impact of uncorroborated and delayed allegations in sexual offence cases']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

conviction set aside; judgment and verdicts of acquittal entered on counts 3, 5, 6, and 7

Orders

['In respect of counts 3, 5, 6 and 7 in each case the conviction is set aside and judgment and verdict of acquittal entered.']