McMahon v R [2022] NSWCCA 64

McMahon v R [2022] NSWCCA 64

The guilty verdict on count 3 was not unreasonable. There were rational explanations for the acquittals on counts 1 and 2 that did not require attributing them only or principally to doubts about the complainant's credibility, including that the jury may have treated the complainant's earliest accounts as most reliable, may have been unsure whether non-consent was communicated in relation to the first two acts, or may not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had the required knowledge or recklessness for those counts. The earlier accounts provided a solid foundation for conviction on the penile-vaginal intercourse count, and it was open to the jury to find count...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'rational Explanation for Acquittals' 'consent' 'jury Verdicts']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'rational Explanation for Acquittals' 'consent' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's guilty verdict on count 3 was unreasonable because it was inconsistent with acquittals on counts 1 and 2." "Whether there was a rational explanation for the acquittals other than doubts about the complainant's credibility." 'Whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty of penile-vaginal sexual intercourse without consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The guilty verdict on count 3 was not unreasonable. There were rational explanations for the acquittals on counts 1 and 2 that did not require attributing them only or principally to doubts about the complainant's credibility, including that the jury may have treated the complainant's earliest accounts as most reliable, may have been unsure whether non-consent was communicated in relation to the first two acts, or may not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had the required knowledge or recklessness for those counts. The earlier accounts provided a solid foundation for conviction on the penile-vaginal intercourse count, and it was open to the jury to find count...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against conviction.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']