Cullen v R [2022] NSWCCA 63

Cullen v R [2022] NSWCCA 63

The appeal was dismissed because the guilty verdict on Count 4 was not irrational, inconsistent, unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Counts 3 and 4 were separate allegations, and the trial judge clearly directed the jury that Count 3 concerned penetration with a pencil and Count 4 concerned digital penetration. The acquittal on Count 3 could rationally be explained by the absence of a pencil and the unusual nature of that allegation, while Count 4 was supported by the complainant's evidence and independent evidence including injuries and blood staining. The jury were entitled to consider each count separately, accept some of the complainant's evidence and remain in doubt about...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent in Circumstances of Aggravation' 'domestic Violence Offences' 'jury Directions' 'corroborative Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['conviction Appeal' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent in Circumstances of Aggravation' 'domestic Violence Offences' 'jury Directions' 'corroborative 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

Criminal Conviction Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdict of guilty on Count 4 was irrational and inconsistent with the acquittals on Counts 3, 5, 6 and 7, particularly Count 3.' 'Whether the verdict of guilty on Count 4 was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.' 'Whether any confusion in the Crown case or the directions concerning Counts 3 and 4 caused a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the guilty verdict on Count 4 was not irrational, inconsistent, unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Counts 3 and 4 were separate allegations, and the trial judge clearly directed the jury that Count 3 concerned penetration with a pencil and Count 4 concerned digital penetration. The acquittal on Count 3 could rationally be explained by the absence of a pencil and the unusual nature of that allegation, while Count 4 was supported by the complainant's evidence and independent evidence including injuries and blood staining. The jury were entitled to consider each count separately, accept some of the complainant's evidence and remain in doubt about...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']