Barney v R [2023] NSWCCA 85

Barney v R [2023] NSWCCA 85

The convictions were not unreasonable by reason of inconsistency with the acquittals. Each non-directed acquittal had a rational explanation that did not require a general rejection of the complainant's credibility or reliability: for Counts 3 and 8 the jury could have had a reasonable doubt that the offences occurred within the particularised date ranges; for Count 8 there was also evidence capable of raising a doubt about the applicant's state of mind; and for Counts 16, 17 and 18 the timing evidence and limited inconsistencies could justify acquittal without undermining the complainant's evidence as a whole. The directed acquittals and other alleged inconsistencies did not show that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court
Outcome
Time extended, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'sexual Offences Against a Child' 'credibility and Reliability of Complainant Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'sexual Offences Against a Child' 'credibility and Reliability of 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 in the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence because they were inconsistent with verdicts of not guilty on other counts.' "Whether the acquittals necessarily reflected a general doubt about the complainant's credibility or reliability such that the convictions could not stand." 'Whether there were rational explanations for the acquittals specific to particular counts, including uncertainty about whether offences occurred within the date ranges particularised.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were not unreasonable by reason of inconsistency with the acquittals. Each non-directed acquittal had a rational explanation that did not require a general rejection of the complainant's credibility or reliability: for Counts 3 and 8 the jury could have had a reasonable doubt that the offences occurred within the particularised date ranges; for Count 8 there was also evidence capable of raising a doubt about the applicant's state of mind; and for Counts 16, 17 and 18 the timing evidence and limited inconsistencies could justify acquittal without undermining the complainant's evidence as a whole. The directed acquittals and other alleged inconsistencies did not show that...

Court Disposition

Time extended, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Time for filing the application for leave to appeal is extended to permit the application to be made.' 'Grant leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']