Regina v NEK [2001] NSWCCA 392
In the circumstances of this case, where the jury acquitted the appellant on ten out of eleven sexual offence counts based on similar evidence from the complainant, logic and reasonableness required that the jury's guilty verdict on count 11 could not be sustained. There was no significant difference in the complainant's evidence on count 11 as compared to the other counts, so the guilty verdict was unreasonable and must be set aside.
- Parties
- Appellant: Regina; Respondent: NEK
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 October 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Offences, Appeals, Inconsistent Verdicts
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Appellant
NEK
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a guilty verdict on one count can be sustained when there are acquittals on multiple other counts based on similar evidence from the same complainant
- 2 Whether the verdict on count 11 was unreasonable or inconsistent in light of the acquittals on other counts
Ratio Decidendi
In the circumstances of this case, where the jury acquitted the appellant on ten out of eleven sexual offence counts based on similar evidence from the complainant, logic and reasonableness required that the jury's guilty verdict on count 11 could not be sustained. There was no significant difference in the complainant's evidence on count 11 as compared to the other counts, so the guilty verdict was unreasonable and must be set aside.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Conviction and verdict on count 11 set aside
- Verdict and judgment of acquittal entered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment