Stanford v R [2018] NSWCCA 249

Stanford v R [2018] NSWCCA 249

By majority, the evidence lacked the degree of cogency necessary to sustain the convictions. Having considered the complainant's inconsistent accounts, the not guilty verdict on count 3, the lack of corroboration, delay, questions of identification and opportunity, and the consistent evidence that the complainant was not left alone with the appellant, it was not open on the whole of the evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of counts 1 and 2.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court of Nsw; Leave Sought on the Unreasonable Verdict Ground
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal allowed; verdicts of guilty set aside; verdicts of not guilty entered.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse With a Child Under the Age of 10' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'reliability Warning Under S 165 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'jury Advantage in Seeing and Hearing Witnesses']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Intercourse With a Child Under the Age of 10' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'reliability Warning Under S 165 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'jury Advantage in Seeing and Hearing Witnesses']

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 Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions in the District Court of Nsw; Leave Sought on the Unreasonable Verdict Ground

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in failing to give the jury a warning pursuant to s 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 that the complainant's evidence may have been unreliable." 'Whether the verdicts of guilty on counts 1 and 2 were unreasonable, or could not be supported, having regard to the evidence.' "What significance should be given to the appellant's acquittal on count 3 when assessing the reasonableness of the guilty verdicts on counts 1 and 2." 'Whether there was a rational basis for the difference between the guilty verdicts on counts 1 and 2 and the not guilty verdict on count 3.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the evidence lacked the degree of cogency necessary to sustain the convictions. Having considered the complainant's inconsistent accounts, the not guilty verdict on count 3, the lack of corroboration, delay, questions of identification and opportunity, and the consistent evidence that the complainant was not left alone with the appellant, it was not open on the whole of the evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of counts 1 and 2.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal allowed; verdicts of guilty set aside; verdicts of not guilty entered.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against conviction granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Verdicts of guilty set aside.' 'Verdicts of not guilty entered.']