Tuuholoaki v R [2024] NSWCCA 135

Tuuholoaki v R [2024] NSWCCA 135

It was open to the jury to find the applicant guilty of counts 1 and 3, as the complainant's evidence was cogent, credible, consistent with circumstances, and corroborated. The applicant's version was unsatisfactory and inconsistent. The trial judge's directions on recklessness adhered to Australian law and did not mislead the jury or diminish the Crown's burden; distinctions between advertent and inadvertent recklessness are not necessary for jury directions, as the law requires consideration of the accused's subjective state of mind.

Parties
Applicant: Matthew Soane Sameul Tuuholoaki; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Nsw; Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (leave granted on ground 1, refused on ground 2); convictions upheld.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Miscarriage of Justice, Jury Directions, Sexual Offences, Intoxication, Recklessness in Criminal Law, Consent
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Miscarriage of Justice Jury Directions Sexual Offences Intoxication Recklessness in Criminal Law Consent

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Soane Sameul Tuuholoaki

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Nsw; Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdicts on counts 1 and 3 were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether trial judge's directions to jury on proving inadvertent recklessness caused a miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the jury to find the applicant guilty of counts 1 and 3, as the complainant's evidence was cogent, credible, consistent with circumstances, and corroborated. The applicant's version was unsatisfactory and inconsistent. The trial judge's directions on recklessness adhered to Australian law and did not mislead the jury or diminish the Crown's burden; distinctions between advertent and inadvertent recklessness are not necessary for jury directions, as the law requires consideration of the accused's subjective state of mind.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (leave granted on ground 1, refused on ground 2); convictions upheld.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal on ground 1
  • Refuse leave pursuant to r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) to allow ground 2 as a ground of appeal