R. v. AULIFF [2001] NSWCCA 393

R. v. AULIFF [2001] NSWCCA 393

The guilty verdict on count 1 was not logically inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on count 3 because the jury could accept evidence supporting an intention to commit sexual intercourse without consent while not being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant carried out that intention. The jury...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Jury Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['sexual Offences' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'jury Separation' 'unreasonable or Unsafe Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Offences' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'jury Separation' 'unreasonable or Unsafe Verdict']

Source-derived case record

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 Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a District Court Jury Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdict on count 1 was unreasonable, unsatisfactory or unsafe because it was inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on count 3.' 'Whether there was a fundamental failure of procedure because the trial judge did not make a formal order under s.54(b) of the Jury Act 1977 before permitting the jury to separate after beginning deliberations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The guilty verdict on count 1 was not logically inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on count 3 because the jury could accept evidence supporting an intention to commit sexual intercourse without consent while not being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant carried out that intention. The jury separation ground also failed because the trial judge in substance authorised the jury to separate after warning them not to discuss the case, and in any event no substantial miscarriage of justice was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']