Regina v Bishell [2002] NSWCCA 279

Regina v Bishell [2002] NSWCCA 279

The verdict of guilty on count 6 was inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on count 2, given that both counts relied solely on the complainant's evidence, with no credible corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the trial judge failed to warn the jury adequately about the dangers of convicting on the unsupported evidence of a single witness. The sentence served was found sufficient and appropriate for the remaining counts, and the sentences were restructured accordingly.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Matthew John Bishell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in District Court
Outcome
Appeal on count 6 allowed; conviction quashed and verdict of acquittal entered; sentences on all counts quashed; new sentences imposed; leave to appeal sentence granted
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Homosexual Intercourse With Person Between the Ages of 10 and 18, Inconsistent Verdicts, Jury Warnings
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Homosexual Intercourse With Person Between the Ages of 10 and 18 Inconsistent Verdicts Jury Warnings

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Matthew John Bishell

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdict on count 6 (oral intercourse) was inconsistent with the verdict of not guilty on count 2 (oral intercourse)
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to give an appropriate warning about convicting on the evidence of a single witness in relation to count 6
  3. 3 Whether sentence imposed was appropriate given time served

Ratio Decidendi

The verdict of guilty on count 6 was inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on count 2, given that both counts relied solely on the complainant's evidence, with no credible corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the trial judge failed to warn the jury adequately about the dangers of convicting on the unsupported evidence of a single witness. The sentence served was found sufficient and appropriate for the remaining counts, and the sentences were restructured accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal on count 6 allowed; conviction quashed and verdict of acquittal entered; sentences on all counts quashed; new sentences imposed; leave to appeal sentence granted

Orders

  • Conviction on count 6 quashed; verdict of acquittal entered
  • Leave to appeal sentence granted