Chiro v The Queen [2017] HCA 37

Chiro v The Queen [2017] HCA 37

In a prosecution under s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), where the jury returns a general verdict of guilty but does not specify which underlying acts of sexual exploitation have been proved, the offender must be sentenced only on the acts most favourable to him and not for all alleged acts, as the jury's findings on specific acts are unknown; the judge should exercise discretion to ask the jury to specify which acts were found proved, but is not to require a special verdict.

Parties
Appellant: Marco Chiro; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; sentence set aside and matter remitted for resentencing; appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Persistent Sexual Exploitation of a Child, Jury Directions, Sentencing, Special Verdicts, Extended Unanimity, General Verdicts
Criminal Law Persistent Sexual Exploitation of a Child Jury Directions Sentencing Special Verdicts Extended Unanimity General 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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marco Chiro

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judge should require a special verdict or ask the jury which acts of sexual exploitation were proved in a s 50(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) prosecution
  2. 2 Whether sentencing should proceed only on the acts most favourable to the accused when the underlying acts found proved by the jury are not identified

Ratio Decidendi

In a prosecution under s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), where the jury returns a general verdict of guilty but does not specify which underlying acts of sexual exploitation have been proved, the offender must be sentenced only on the acts most favourable to him and not for all alleged acts, as the jury's findings on specific acts are unknown; the judge should exercise discretion to ask the jury to specify which acts were found proved, but is not to require a special verdict.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sentence set aside and matter remitted for resentencing; appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia made on 30 September 2015 in SCCRM-15-232, and in its place order that the appeal against sentence be allowed and the sentence be set aside.