Ramsey v R [2022] NSWCCA 197

Ramsey v R [2022] NSWCCA 197

The conviction appeal failed because the additional evidence relied on by the appellant did not create a reasonable doubt, was not fresh, and in any event was not likely to have led the jury to acquit; the alleged trial errors were not established; and, applying the correct appellate test, the verdicts were open on the evidence. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because no specific sentencing error was reasonably arguable and the aggregate sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Against Conviction Granted, Conviction Appeal Dismissed, Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Refused
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['indecent Assault' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'new Evidence' 'fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'hearsay' 'refreshing Memory' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['indecent Assault' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'new Evidence' 'fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'hearsay' 'refreshing Memory' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Excess']

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 and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Against Conviction Granted, Conviction Appeal Dismissed, Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether untendered phone and text message evidence or evidence from witnesses not called established a miscarriage of justice or was fresh evidence.' 'Whether the conduct of the trial, including alleged leading questions, alleged hearsay and alleged unfairness, caused a miscarriage of justice.' "Whether the jury's guilty verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence." "Whether the sentencing judge erred in determining special circumstances or considering the appellant's subjective circumstances." 'Whether the aggregate sentence of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction appeal failed because the additional evidence relied on by the appellant did not create a reasonable doubt, was not fresh, and in any event was not likely to have led the jury to acquit; the alleged trial errors were not established; and, applying the correct appellate test, the verdicts were open on the evidence. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because no specific sentencing error was reasonably arguable and the aggregate sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against conviction.' 'Dismiss the appeal against conviction.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence refused.']