Soames v R [2012] NSWCCA 188
Having considered the inconsistencies, contradictions, and omissions, and having assessed the evidence at trial, the court was not persuaded there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted. The jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence regarding the sexual assault, and the directions given concerning her credibility were adequate. There was no procedural unfairness in the Crown's conduct at trial.
- Parties
- Applicant: Natham Soames; Crown Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 August 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Against Conviction, Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, Unreasonable Verdict, Procedural Fairness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Natham Soames
Applicant
Regina
Crown Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence
- 2 Whether trial miscarried by denial of procedural fairness
Ratio Decidendi
Having considered the inconsistencies, contradictions, and omissions, and having assessed the evidence at trial, the court was not persuaded there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted. The jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence regarding the sexual assault, and the directions given concerning her credibility were adequate. There was no procedural unfairness in the Crown's conduct at trial.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Leave to rely upon procedural fairness grounds refused
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