Maber (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 106

Maber (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 106

The convictions challenged on counts 6 to 12 were not unreasonable. The asserted weaknesses concerning the COPS record, intoxication, ambulance attendance and G's dates were prominent at trial and in the summing up, but the jury was entitled to accept the complainants' evidence after seeing them give evidence and considering the whole of the evidence, including unchallenged or accepted evidence of prior physical and sexual violence and tendency evidence. The absence of a COPS record of the pushing or sexual touching and G's unreliability about precise dates did not require the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal; Appeal Determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unreasonable Verdict' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'sexual Offences' 'domestic Violence' 'complainant Credibility' 'inconsistencies in Evidence' 'jury Advantages' 'tendency Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['unreasonable Verdict' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'sexual Offences' 'domestic Violence' 'complainant Credibility' 'inconsistencies in Evidence' 'jury Advantages' 'tendency 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 Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal; Appeal Determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdicts on counts 6, 7 and 8 involving M were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, particularly the absence of reference in the COPS record to sexual touching or being pushed down stairs and inconsistencies about intoxication." "Whether the jury's verdicts on counts 9, 10, 11 and 12 involving G were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, particularly G's reliability as to dates when compared with school attendance records."]

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions challenged on counts 6 to 12 were not unreasonable. The asserted weaknesses concerning the COPS record, intoxication, ambulance attendance and G's dates were prominent at trial and in the summing up, but the jury was entitled to accept the complainants' evidence after seeing them give evidence and considering the whole of the evidence, including unchallenged or accepted evidence of prior physical and sexual violence and tendency evidence. The absence of a COPS record of the pushing or sexual touching and G's unreliability about precise dates did not require the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.']