Regina v James [1999] NSWCCA 191
Applying R v Jones, the acquittal and inability to agree on some counts demonstrated the jury's doubts about the complainant's credibility. As these doubts could not be logically isolated, the guilty verdicts on remaining counts were not safe and satisfactory. The trial judge's directions on character did not depart from principle, but were not central to the outcome.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 July 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; verdict of acquittal entered.
- Legal Topics
- ['indecent Assault' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'jury Directions' 'evidence of Character' 'complainant Credibility']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the guilty verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory due to inconsistencies in the verdicts regarding the complainant's credibility." "Whether the trial judge's directions on evidence of good character accorded with established legal principles."]
Ratio Decidendi
Applying R v Jones, the acquittal and inability to agree on some counts demonstrated the jury's doubts about the complainant's credibility. As these doubts could not be logically isolated, the guilty verdicts on remaining counts were not safe and satisfactory. The trial judge's directions on character did not depart from principle, but were not central to the outcome.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; verdict of acquittal entered.
Orders
- ['Appeal allowed' 'Convictions quashed' 'Verdict 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