Dean v R [2022] NSWCCA 122

Dean v R [2022] NSWCCA 122

The guilty verdicts on Counts 2 and 3 were not unreasonable by reason of inconsistency with the not guilty verdict on Count 4. The acquittal on Count 4 was rationally explicable by differences in the quality of the complainant's evidence: her evidence about the use of a vibrator was introduced later, contained expressions of uncertainty, lacked support from complaint evidence, and was affected by evidence about when and where the vibrator was received and discarded. By contrast, her evidence on Counts 2 and 3 was firm and unqualified. The jury could therefore conscientiously distinguish between the counts and be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on Counts 2 and 3 while not being so...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'sexual Intercourse With a Child' 'indecent Assault of a Child' 'jury Verdicts']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'sexual Intercourse With a Child' 'indecent Assault of a Child' 'jury Verdicts']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on Counts 2 and 3 were unreasonable because they were inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on Count 4.' "Whether there was a logical and rational basis for the jury to distinguish between the complainant's evidence on Count 4 and her evidence on Counts 2 and 3."]

Ratio Decidendi

The guilty verdicts on Counts 2 and 3 were not unreasonable by reason of inconsistency with the not guilty verdict on Count 4. The acquittal on Count 4 was rationally explicable by differences in the quality of the complainant's evidence: her evidence about the use of a vibrator was introduced later, contained expressions of uncertainty, lacked support from complaint evidence, and was affected by evidence about when and where the vibrator was received and discarded. By contrast, her evidence on Counts 2 and 3 was firm and unqualified. The jury could therefore conscientiously distinguish between the counts and be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on Counts 2 and 3 while not being so...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the appeal.']