R v RAT [2000] NSWCCA 77

R v RAT [2000] NSWCCA 77

By majority, the convictions on counts 1 to 3 were unreasonable and could not be supported. Although the different verdicts were not themselves an affront to logic because counts 4 and 6 involved different surrounding circumstances and evidence, all counts depended on the complainant's evidence. On the only two counts where that evidence could be set against other apparently or potentially reliable evidence, it failed to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt. There was no sufficient ground for supposing that the complainant's evidence was more reliable on counts 1 to 3, where it could not be tested in the same way, than on the counts of acquittal. Applying Jones v The Queen, the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences From the District Court
Outcome
By majority, appeal upheld; convictions and sentences quashed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault' 'indecent Assault' 'carnal Knowledge' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'complainant Credibility' 'complaint Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['sexual Assault' 'indecent Assault' 'carnal Knowledge' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'complainant Credibility' 'complaint 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 1 to 3 were inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on counts 4 and 6.' 'Whether, having regard to the evidence, the guilty verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported.' "Whether the jury's acquittals on counts where the complainant's evidence was tested against other evidence meant that the convictions on counts dependent on the same complainant's evidence could stand."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the convictions on counts 1 to 3 were unreasonable and could not be supported. Although the different verdicts were not themselves an affront to logic because counts 4 and 6 involved different surrounding circumstances and evidence, all counts depended on the complainant's evidence. On the only two counts where that evidence could be set against other apparently or potentially reliable evidence, it failed to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt. There was no sufficient ground for supposing that the complainant's evidence was more reliable on counts 1 to 3, where it could not be tested in the same way, than on the counts of acquittal. Applying Jones v The Queen, the...

Court Disposition

By majority, appeal upheld; convictions and sentences quashed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' 'Convictions quashed.' 'Sentences quashed.' 'Judgments of acquittal entered.']