MKR v R [2025] NSWCCA 1

MKR v R [2025] NSWCCA 1

Reading the trial judgment as a whole, the trial judge correctly identified and applied the burden and standard of proof, did not reverse the onus, and adequately exposed reasoning linking legal principles to findings. Directions concerning alibi, character, Markuleski and Liberato were correctly and adequately addressed; no miscarriage of justice or error of law occurred to warrant overturning the conviction.

Parties
Applicant: MKR; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction, Post Judgment (judge Alone Trial)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals Against Conviction, Judge Alone Trials, Burden of Proof, Onus of Proof, Alibi Evidence, Good Character Evidence, Trial Directions, Sex Offences Against Children
Criminal Law Appeals Against Conviction Judge Alone Trials Burden of Proof Onus of Proof Alibi Evidence Good Character Evidence Trial Directions +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MKR

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction, Post Judgment (judge Alone Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant suffered a miscarriage of justice due to alleged reversal of evidentiary and persuasive burdens of proof by the trial judge
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to expose the reasoning process linking relevant legal principles to findings, in contravention of s 133(2)(3) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
  3. 3 Adequacy of directions regarding alibi evidence, character evidence, Markuleski and Liberato directions

Ratio Decidendi

Reading the trial judgment as a whole, the trial judge correctly identified and applied the burden and standard of proof, did not reverse the onus, and adequately exposed reasoning linking legal principles to findings. Directions concerning alibi, character, Markuleski and Liberato were correctly and adequately addressed; no miscarriage of justice or error of law occurred to warrant overturning the conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Extend time for the applicant to appeal to 23 September 2024.
  • Grant leave to appeal.