Smith v R [2019] NSWCCA 162

Smith v R [2019] NSWCCA 162

Despite inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and delay in complaint, the trial judge carefully considered credibility and reliability, accepted corroboration from complaint witnesses, and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of applicant's guilt on Counts 1, 2, and 3. There was no legal error or insufficiency in the evidence to render verdicts unreasonable. The failure to seek a hearsay warning at trial and absence of a formulated direction meant leave to appeal on that ground was properly refused.

Parties
Applicant: Robin Mark Smith; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing and Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted only on ground 1; refused on ground 2.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Judge Alone Trial, Sexual Assault, Use of Offensive Weapon, Complaint Evidence, Corroboration, Hearsay, Unreasonable Verdict
Criminal Law Appeals Judge Alone Trial Sexual Assault Use of Offensive Weapon Complaint Evidence Corroboration Hearsay +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Mark Smith

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdicts of guilty for Counts 1, 2 and 3 were unreasonable given the nature and quality of the evidence and the acquittal for Counts 4 and 5
  2. 2 Whether failure to give a hearsay warning constituted appealable error

Ratio Decidendi

Despite inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and delay in complaint, the trial judge carefully considered credibility and reliability, accepted corroboration from complaint witnesses, and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of applicant's guilt on Counts 1, 2, and 3. There was no legal error or insufficiency in the evidence to render verdicts unreasonable. The failure to seek a hearsay warning at trial and absence of a formulated direction meant leave to appeal on that ground was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted only on ground 1; refused on ground 2.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal against conviction with respect to ground 1.
  • Refuse leave to appeal with respect to ground 2.