Nadin (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 284

Nadin (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 284

The guilty verdicts on counts 1 to 4 were not inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 5 to 10 because the acquittals were readily explained by the qualitative difference between the complainant's specific, detailed evidence about the pizza incident and her more generalised evidence about the other incidents. The deceased wife's evidence did not directly and unequivocally contradict the pizza incident, and the cross-examination relied on did not fairly establish that the complainant alleged fellatio during that incident. On the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on counts 1 to 4.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal; Appeal Heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Time to appeal extended, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdicts' 'acts of Indecency Upon a Child' 'sexual Intercourse With a Child' 'complainant Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdicts' 'acts of Indecency Upon a Child' 'sexual Intercourse With a Child' 'complainant Evidence']

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 / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal; Appeal Heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 1 to 4 were inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on counts 5 to 10 and should be quashed.' 'Whether the guilty verdicts were unsafe, unsatisfactory, unreasonable or unsupported having regard to the whole of the evidence.' "Whether the evidence of the applicant's deceased wife made it impossible or not open for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on counts 1 to 4." "Whether cross-examination concerning fellatio undermined the reliability of the complainant's evidence about the pizza incident."]

Ratio Decidendi

The guilty verdicts on counts 1 to 4 were not inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 5 to 10 because the acquittals were readily explained by the qualitative difference between the complainant's specific, detailed evidence about the pizza incident and her more generalised evidence about the other incidents. The deceased wife's evidence did not directly and unequivocally contradict the pizza incident, and the cross-examination relied on did not fairly establish that the complainant alleged fellatio during that incident. On the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt on counts 1 to 4.

Court Disposition

Time to appeal extended, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time to appeal to 6 July 2022.' 'Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.']