R v KRL [2007] NSWCCA 354

R v KRL [2007] NSWCCA 354

The conviction was not unreasonable. There was evidence to support the verdict on count one, and CAS's evidence did not reveal inconsistency or inadequacy requiring the verdict to be set aside. The acquittals on counts four to six could be reconciled with uncertainty about the timing of the alleged 1966 offences. The acquittals on counts two and three could be reconciled with the jury being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of indecent assault but not of penile penetration, particularly given that CAS's eyes were closed and her recollection was formed as a child many years earlier. The verdict on count one was therefore not an affront to logic and reason when viewed with the acquittals,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'sexual Offences' 'indecent Assault' 'delay in Complaint' 'reliability of Complainant Evidence' 'majority Verdict Direction']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'sexual Offences' 'indecent Assault' 'delay in Complaint' 'reliability of Complainant Evidence' 'majority Verdict Direction']

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 Against Conviction / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's conviction on count one was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence." "Whether the conviction on count one was inconsistent with the jury's acquittals on counts two to six such that it was an affront to logic and common sense." 'Whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on the indecent assault count notwithstanding acquittals on the counts alleging carnal knowledge and buggery.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was not unreasonable. There was evidence to support the verdict on count one, and CAS's evidence did not reveal inconsistency or inadequacy requiring the verdict to be set aside. The acquittals on counts four to six could be reconciled with uncertainty about the timing of the alleged 1966 offences. The acquittals on counts two and three could be reconciled with the jury being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of indecent assault but not of penile penetration, particularly given that CAS's eyes were closed and her recollection was formed as a child many years earlier. The verdict on count one was therefore not an affront to logic and reason when viewed with the acquittals,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the appeal.' "Pursuant to sections 18 and 28A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 direct that the non-parole period commence on 18 December 2007. The non-parole period will expire on 17 September 2008. The balance of the sentence is two years and three months and will expire on 17 December 2010. Direct the...