REGINA v SBD [2003] NSWCCA 235

REGINA v SBD [2003] NSWCCA 235

The convictions on counts 5 and 6 were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The complainant's evidence was undermined by significant discrepancies between his initial complaints to D, histories given to doctors and police, and trial evidence; by prior statements that the abuse ended when he was thirteen or fourteen; by the absence of supporting evidence on the crucial issues; and by difficulties in proving beyond reasonable doubt absence of consent and the appellant's knowledge or recklessness as to consent. Even allowing for the jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the witnesses, the jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; no new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'sexual Assault' 'complaint Evidence' 'delay' 'consent']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'sexual Assault' 'complaint Evidence' 'delay' 'consent']

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

Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the convictions on counts 5 and 6 were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence under s6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether verdicts of guilty on counts 5 and 6 were inconsistent with acquittals on counts 1 to 4.' "Whether significant contradictions between the complainant's initial complaints, statements and trial evidence meant the jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt." "Whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt absence of consent and the appellant's knowledge or recklessness as to absence of consent on counts 5 and 6."]

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions on counts 5 and 6 were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The complainant's evidence was undermined by significant discrepancies between his initial complaints to D, histories given to doctors and police, and trial evidence; by prior statements that the abuse ended when he was thirteen or fourteen; by the absence of supporting evidence on the crucial issues; and by difficulties in proving beyond reasonable doubt absence of consent and the appellant's knowledge or recklessness as to consent. Even allowing for the jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the witnesses, the jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; no new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Convictions quashed.' 'No new trial.']