ML v R [2015] NSWCCA 27
It was open to the jury to distinguish between the two counts based on the evidence and to return different verdicts without inconsistency or unreasonableness. The complainant's lack of memory did not require a further warning as the potential forensic disadvantage was apparent to the jury, thoroughly addressed by counsel and judge, and supported by available contemporaneous evidence. No miscarriage of justice occurred.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Conviction Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['sexual Offences Against Children' 'jury Directions' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreliable Evidence Warnings' 'appeals']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Conviction Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the jury verdicts were factually inconsistent and unreasonable' 'Whether the trial judge erred in failing to give a warning to the jury regarding unreliable evidence of the complainant under s165 Evidence Act 1999']
Ratio Decidendi
It was open to the jury to distinguish between the two counts based on the evidence and to return different verdicts without inconsistency or unreasonableness. The complainant's lack of memory did not require a further warning as the potential forensic disadvantage was apparent to the jury, thoroughly addressed by counsel and judge, and supported by available contemporaneous evidence. No miscarriage of justice occurred.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Leave granted to the appellant to rely upon Ground 2 of the appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment