Jeffreys v R [2015] NSWCCA 132

Jeffreys v R [2015] NSWCCA 132

The summing-up was not unfair because, read as a whole, it identified the Applicant's case, the complainant's lack of recollection, and the Crown's onus of proof. The verdict was not unreasonable because the circumstantial evidence, including the complainant's immediate distress and complaints, her statement that she would never consent to sex with her uncle, the absence of sexual interest in him, her intoxication, and the Applicant's knowledge of those matters, made it open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent and that the Applicant was reckless as to consent or had no reasonable grounds for believing she was consenting.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Sexual Intercourse Without Consent / Application for Leave to Appeal From the District Court of Nsw; Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; Appellant directed to return to custody.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'consent' 'recklessness as to Consent' 'reasonable Belief in Consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'jury Summing Up' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'consent' 'recklessness as to Consent' 'reasonable Belief in Consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'jury Summing Up' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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 for Sexual Intercourse Without Consent / Application for Leave to Appeal From the District Court of Nsw; Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdict of guilty was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence." "Whether the trial judge's summing-up was unfair and resulted in a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether leave was required under rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules because no complaint was made at trial about the directions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summing-up was not unfair because, read as a whole, it identified the Applicant's case, the complainant's lack of recollection, and the Crown's onus of proof. The verdict was not unreasonable because the circumstantial evidence, including the complainant's immediate distress and complaints, her statement that she would never consent to sex with her uncle, the absence of sexual interest in him, her intoxication, and the Applicant's knowledge of those matters, made it open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent and that the Applicant was reckless as to consent or had no reasonable grounds for believing she was consenting.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; Appellant directed to return to custody.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.' 'Direct that the Appellant be returned to custody to serve the balance of his non-parole period of 9 months and 24 days commencing 4 June 2015 and expiring 27 March 2016 with an additional term expiring on 27 March 2018.']