Walker v R [2019] NSWCCA 4

Walker v R [2019] NSWCCA 4

The guilty and not guilty verdicts were capable of rational reconciliation. The acquittals on counts 3 and 4 could be explained by doubts about whether the river incident occurred within the charged time-frame; count 5 required proof of lack of consent while the alternative count 6 required proof of intercourse with a child under 16 and was supported by other evidence including the pretext call; the acquittals on counts 7 to 13 could be explained by the narrow January 1989 time-frame and evidence suggesting the complainant may have been mistaken about timing; and the acquittal on count 14 could be explained by doubt about the break and enter element while still accepting the sexual...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'sexual Offences Against an Underage Complainant' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'jury Verdicts']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['conviction Appeal' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'sexual Offences Against an Underage Complainant' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'jury Verdicts']

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 Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 1, 2, 6, 15 and 16 were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence and to the not guilty verdicts on counts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.' 'Whether the guilty and not guilty verdicts were inconsistent or incapable of standing together.' "Whether there were rational explanations for the acquittals other than doubts about the complainant's credibility or reliability."]

Ratio Decidendi

The guilty and not guilty verdicts were capable of rational reconciliation. The acquittals on counts 3 and 4 could be explained by doubts about whether the river incident occurred within the charged time-frame; count 5 required proof of lack of consent while the alternative count 6 required proof of intercourse with a child under 16 and was supported by other evidence including the pretext call; the acquittals on counts 7 to 13 could be explained by the narrow January 1989 time-frame and evidence suggesting the complainant may have been mistaken about timing; and the acquittal on count 14 could be explained by doubt about the break and enter element while still accepting the sexual...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal against conviction is dismissed.']