Passmore v R [2023] NSWCCA 65

Passmore v R [2023] NSWCCA 65

Because the Crown amended the indictment to allege 12 February 2019, it had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the identified indecent communication occurred on that date. The complainant gave internally inconsistent and directly contradictory evidence about whether the words were said on 5, 7, 11 or 12 February 2019, and the jury was in no better position than the Court to resolve that reliability problem. On the Court's independent assessment, the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the communication occurred on 12 February 2019, so the verdict was unreasonable and unsafe.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction After Jury Trial in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered on count 1 in the indictment.
Legal Topics
['unreasonable Verdict' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'indecent Communication to Person Under 16' 'use of Carriage Service' 'reliability of Complainant Evidence' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals'] ['unreasonable Verdict' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'indecent Communication to Person Under 16' 'use of Carriage Service' 'reliability of Complainant Evidence' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt']

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 / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction After Jury Trial in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence." 'Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the indecent words were spoken in a mobile telephone call on 12 February 2019.' "Whether the complainant's evidence about the date of the alleged indecent communication was sufficiently reliable to support the conviction."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Crown amended the indictment to allege 12 February 2019, it had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the identified indecent communication occurred on that date. The complainant gave internally inconsistent and directly contradictory evidence about whether the words were said on 5, 7, 11 or 12 February 2019, and the jury was in no better position than the Court to resolve that reliability problem. On the Court's independent assessment, the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the communication occurred on 12 February 2019, so the verdict was unreasonable and unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered on count 1 in the indictment.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' "Quash the appellant's conviction." 'Enter verdict of acquittal on count 1 in the indictment.']