LH v R [2020] NSWCCA 262

LH v R [2020] NSWCCA 262

Leave was refused because, on review of the whole of the evidence, the verdicts on counts 2 and 3 were well open to the jury. The asserted discrepancies were minor, the evidence about the shed did not establish a physical impossibility, the recorded telephone admissions gave powerful support to the complainant's evidence, and there was no basis to conclude that the jury failed to consider each count separately.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Convictions / Court of Criminal Appeal Application From District Court of New South Wales Convictions on Counts 2 and 3
Outcome
Leave to appeal against the convictions recorded against the applicant with respect to counts 2 and 3 was refused.
Legal Topics
['child Sexual Assault Offences' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'complaint Evidence' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals'] ['child Sexual Assault Offences' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'complaint Evidence' 'jury Directions']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Convictions / Court of Criminal Appeal Application From District Court of New South Wales Convictions on Counts 2 and 3

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdicts on counts 2 and 3 were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence." 'Whether asserted inconsistencies in complaint evidence and the evidence about residence in the shed required the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt.' 'Whether the jury failed to consider each count separately after convicting on count 1.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because, on review of the whole of the evidence, the verdicts on counts 2 and 3 were well open to the jury. The asserted discrepancies were minor, the evidence about the shed did not establish a physical impossibility, the recorded telephone admissions gave powerful support to the complainant's evidence, and there was no basis to conclude that the jury failed to consider each count separately.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against the convictions recorded against the applicant with respect to counts 2 and 3 was refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against the convictions recorded against the applicant with respect to counts 2 and 3 is refused.']