R v RASO [2000] NSWCCA 22

R v RASO [2000] NSWCCA 22

The appeal was dismissed because there was a rational basis upon which the jury could accept the complainant's evidence that sexual intercourse occurred for the purposes of count 4 while not being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that lack of consent was proved for count 3, and there was no necessary inconsistency between the acquittals on counts 1, 2 and 3 and the conviction on count 4. The guilty verdict was not shown to be unsafe, unsatisfactory or unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Jury Verdict of Guilty on Count 4
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['inconsistent Verdicts' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'sexual Intercourse With a Person Above the Age of 10 and Under the Age of 16' 'jury Assessment of Witness Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['inconsistent Verdicts' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'sexual Intercourse With a Person Above the Age of 10 and Under the Age of 16' 'jury Assessment of Witness 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Jury Verdict of Guilty on Count 4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdict of guilty on count 4 was inconsistent with the verdicts of not guilty on counts 1 and 3 so as to occasion a miscarriage of justice.' 'Whether the guilty verdict on count 4 was unsafe and unsatisfactory or unreasonable.' "Whether the jury had a rational basis to accept the complainant's evidence that sexual intercourse occurred while not being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that lack of consent was proved."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because there was a rational basis upon which the jury could accept the complainant's evidence that sexual intercourse occurred for the purposes of count 4 while not being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that lack of consent was proved for count 3, and there was no necessary inconsistency between the acquittals on counts 1, 2 and 3 and the conviction on count 4. The guilty verdict was not shown to be unsafe, unsatisfactory or unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']