KA v R [2015] NSWCCA 111

KA v R [2015] NSWCCA 111

The appeal against conviction failed because the joint criminal enterprise and circumstantial evidence directions were adequate for the real issues at trial and, in any event, no objection was taken so leave under r 4 was refused; independently assessing the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt on both counts. The sentence appeal failed because the disparity between the appellant's sentence and EZ's sentence was justified by the considerable difference in their ages and did not produce a justifiable sense of grievance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Convictions and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences / Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Convictions and Sentences Imposed by Frearson DCJ on 30 August 2013
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentences granted; sentence appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'circumstantial Evidence Directions' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'parity in Sentencing' 'criminal Appeal Rules, R 4']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'circumstantial Evidence Directions' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'parity in Sentencing' 'criminal Appeal Rules, R 4']

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 Convictions and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences / Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Convictions and Sentences Imposed by Frearson DCJ on 30 August 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge failed properly to direct the jury on joint criminal enterprise in relation to Count 1.' 'Whether the trial judge failed properly to direct the jury on circumstantial evidence in relation to Count 2.' 'Whether the verdicts on Counts 1 and 2 were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.' "Whether the appellant had a justifiable sense of grievance by reason of disparity between his sentence and the co-offender's sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction failed because the joint criminal enterprise and circumstantial evidence directions were adequate for the real issues at trial and, in any event, no objection was taken so leave under r 4 was refused; independently assessing the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt on both counts. The sentence appeal failed because the disparity between the appellant's sentence and EZ's sentence was justified by the considerable difference in their ages and did not produce a justifiable sense of grievance.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentences granted; sentence appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentences granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']