Regina v Vito MEOLA [1999] NSWCCA 388

Regina v Vito MEOLA [1999] NSWCCA 388

The conviction on count 1 could not stand because the jury's acquittals on counts 2 and 3 necessarily indicated that the complainant's evidence was not accepted beyond reasonable doubt on those charges, and no reasoning process supported treating it as stronger on count 1. Independently, doli incapax arose on the dating of count 1 and the Crown evidence did not and could not prove the appellant's requisite capacity to the criminal standard. Those reasons required an outright acquittal rather than a new trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction allowed; conviction and sentence consequent upon it quashed; judgment of acquittal entered on count 1 of the indictment.
Legal Topics
['sexual Impropriety Charges' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Conviction' 'doli Incapax' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'acquittal Point']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Impropriety Charges' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Conviction' 'doli Incapax' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'acquittal Point']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the conviction on count 1 was unsafe and unsatisfactory in light of the jury's acquittals on counts 2 and 3 and the complainant's unsupported evidence." 'Whether the presumption of doli incapax applied to count 1 and required the Crown to prove to the criminal standard that the appellant had the requisite capacity.' 'Whether the appellant should be permitted to rely on the doli incapax point on appeal although it was not taken at trial.' 'Whether the appropriate outcome was an acquittal rather than a new trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction on count 1 could not stand because the jury's acquittals on counts 2 and 3 necessarily indicated that the complainant's evidence was not accepted beyond reasonable doubt on those charges, and no reasoning process supported treating it as stronger on count 1. Independently, doli incapax arose on the dating of count 1 and the Crown evidence did not and could not prove the appellant's requisite capacity to the criminal standard. Those reasons required an outright acquittal rather than a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction allowed; conviction and sentence consequent upon it quashed; judgment of acquittal entered on count 1 of the indictment.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction allowed.' 'Conviction and the sentence consequent upon it quashed.' 'Judgment of acquittal entered on count 1 of the indictment.']