MA v R [2022] NSWCCA 61

MA v R [2022] NSWCCA 61

The guilty verdicts were not unreasonable. The acquittals on the earlier counts could be explained by rational bases other than general doubts about the complainant's credibility, including the lack of specific or contemporaneous complaint evidence, uncertainty caused by amendments to the indictment, and differences in the evidence relating to the earlier incidents. It was open to the jury to treat Count 13 and the later counts as supported by complaint evidence and as occurring later in time, when the complainant was older and the events more recent. On the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on the counts of conviction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Extension of time to appeal refused and application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'sexual Offences Against Child Complainant' 'complaint Evidence' 'jury Verdicts']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'appeals'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'sexual Offences Against Child Complainant' 'complaint Evidence' 'jury 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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on Counts 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were unreasonable because they were inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on other counts.' "Whether the not guilty verdicts could be explained on logical and reasonable bases other than general doubts about the complainant's credibility or reliability." "Whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt on the counts of conviction."]

Ratio Decidendi

The guilty verdicts were not unreasonable. The acquittals on the earlier counts could be explained by rational bases other than general doubts about the complainant's credibility, including the lack of specific or contemporaneous complaint evidence, uncertainty caused by amendments to the indictment, and differences in the evidence relating to the earlier incidents. It was open to the jury to treat Count 13 and the later counts as supported by complaint evidence and as occurring later in time, when the complainant was older and the events more recent. On the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on the counts of conviction.

Court Disposition

Extension of time to appeal refused and application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Refuse extension of time to appeal.' 'Dismiss application for leave to appeal.']