MG v R [2017] NSWCCA 14

MG v R [2017] NSWCCA 14

The appeal failed because the acquittals had rational and logical explanations which did not require a conclusion that the jury rejected the complainants' credibility. For Mary, count 4 involved discrete evidentiary weaknesses and an unlikely sequence after alleged ejaculation, while counts 8 to 11 lacked support from call charge records and involved omissions in her trial account. For Elizabeth, counts 5, 12 and 13 had corroborative or supporting features not present for counts 6 and 7, including evidence from Messrs King and McGuigan and the similarity and timing of Helen's evidence on count 14. Looking at the totality, nature and quality of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'child Sexual Assault' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'tendency Evidence' 'sexual Grooming' 'jury Verdicts']
['criminal Law'] ['conviction Appeal' 'child Sexual Assault' 'aggravated Indecent Assault' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'tendency Evidence' 'sexual Grooming' 'jury Verdicts']

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 Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdicts of guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 13 and 14 were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.' 'Whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on counts 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.' 'Whether the only rational explanation for the acquittals was that the jury rejected the complainants as witnesses of truth.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the acquittals had rational and logical explanations which did not require a conclusion that the jury rejected the complainants' credibility. For Mary, count 4 involved discrete evidentiary weaknesses and an unlikely sequence after alleged ejaculation, while counts 8 to 11 lacked support from call charge records and involved omissions in her trial account. For Elizabeth, counts 5, 12 and 13 had corroborative or supporting features not present for counts 6 and 7, including evidence from Messrs King and McGuigan and the similarity and timing of Helen's evidence on count 14. Looking at the totality, nature and quality of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

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