R v Porteus [2003] NSWCCA 18

R v Porteus [2003] NSWCCA 18

It was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the complainants were not consenting, or at least was reckless as to their consent. The evidence permitted findings that the complainants attended for massage, were placed in vulnerable positions, gave no overt consent to the relevant sexual intercourse, and that the appellant tried his luck and proceeded despite the possibility of non-consent. The appeal ground was not made out, and no sentencing error or undue harshness justified intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'knowledge of Absence of Consent' 'recklessness as to Consent' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'knowledge of Absence of Consent' 'recklessness as to Consent' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']

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 / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, confined on appeal to proof that the appellant knew the complainants were not consenting." 'Whether the appellant was reckless as to whether the complainants consented, so as to be taken to know that they did not consent under s 61R(1).' 'Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted in the absence of sentencing error or undue harshness.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the complainants were not consenting, or at least was reckless as to their consent. The evidence permitted findings that the complainants attended for massage, were placed in vulnerable positions, gave no overt consent to the relevant sexual intercourse, and that the appellant tried his luck and proceeded despite the possibility of non-consent. The appeal ground was not made out, and no sentencing error or undue harshness justified intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence refused.']