SI v R [2007] NSWCCA 181
Given the fundamental unreliability and inconsistency in the complainant's evidence, supported by the trial judge's serious reservations about her credit, and absence of a rational basis for the jury to accept her evidence for count 4 but not count 5, it was not open to the jury to convict; the conviction for aggravated indecent assault is unsafe and must be quashed.
- Parties
- Applicant: SI; Respondent: The Crown
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 June 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Offences, Indecent Assault, Unsafe Verdicts, Jury Verdicts, Evidence, Child Complainant, Hearsay
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SI
Applicant
The Crown
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for aggravated indecent assault was unreasonable
- 2 Whether the jury verdicts were inconsistent
- 3 Whether error was made in admitting hearsay evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Given the fundamental unreliability and inconsistency in the complainant's evidence, supported by the trial judge's serious reservations about her credit, and absence of a rational basis for the jury to accept her evidence for count 4 but not count 5, it was not open to the jury to convict; the conviction for aggravated indecent assault is unsafe and must be quashed.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered
Orders
- Non-publication order in relation to the name of the complainant and any matter that can identify the complainant
- Conviction quashed and a verdict of acquittal entered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment