Regina v Steenson [2000] NSWCCA 143

Regina v Steenson [2000] NSWCCA 143

The verdicts were not inconsistent because the acquittal on the first count did not necessarily involve a doubt about the complainant's credibility; in light of the trial judge's direction and the circumstances of the relationship, it could be explained by doubt about whether the appellant knew of the absence or withdrawal of consent. The second count turned on whether anal intercourse occurred, and the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence on that issue. The matters relied on as making the verdict unreasonable were properly matters for the jury and did not make the conviction unsafe.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'consent and Knowledge of Absence of Consent' 'delay in Complaint' 'complainant Credibility']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'consent and Knowledge of Absence of Consent' 'delay in Complaint' 'complainant Credibility']

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 Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdicts of not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second count were inconsistent." "Whether the guilty verdict on the second count was unreasonable having regard to the evidence, including delay in complaint, continued cohabitation and asserted discrepancies in the complainant's accounts."]

Ratio Decidendi

The verdicts were not inconsistent because the acquittal on the first count did not necessarily involve a doubt about the complainant's credibility; in light of the trial judge's direction and the circumstances of the relationship, it could be explained by doubt about whether the appellant knew of the absence or withdrawal of consent. The second count turned on whether anal intercourse occurred, and the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence on that issue. The matters relied on as making the verdict unreasonable were properly matters for the jury and did not make the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']