Goldman v R [2021] NSWCCA 197

Goldman v R [2021] NSWCCA 197

The conviction on count 2 was not unreasonable. The acquittals on counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 were not inconsistent with the guilty verdict on count 2 because there was a rational and logical basis for the jury to distinguish count 2, including immediate and consistent electronically recorded complaint evidence. Having reviewed the 19 matters relied on by the applicant and the evidence as a whole, the Court did not doubt the complainant's reliability or credibility in relation to count 2 and held that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt. No miscarriage of justice occurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'assessment of Complainant Credibility and Reliability' 'assault' 'sexual Offences' 'complaint Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'assessment of Complainant Credibility and Reliability' 'assault' 'sexual Offences' 'complaint 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdict on count 2 was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to all the evidence and the acquittals on counts 1 and 3-5.' 'Whether the acquittals on counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 were inconsistent with the conviction on count 2.' "Whether the complainant was unreliable or lacking in credit such that the jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt about the applicant's guilt on count 2."]

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction on count 2 was not unreasonable. The acquittals on counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 were not inconsistent with the guilty verdict on count 2 because there was a rational and logical basis for the jury to distinguish count 2, including immediate and consistent electronically recorded complaint evidence. Having reviewed the 19 matters relied on by the applicant and the evidence as a whole, the Court did not doubt the complainant's reliability or credibility in relation to count 2 and held that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt. No miscarriage of justice occurred.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']