Allan v R [2017] NSWCCA 6

Allan v R [2017] NSWCCA 6

The Court found that, upon independent assessment, the jury’s verdicts of guilty on Counts 2 and 3 were open on the evidence. The possibility of DNA contamination or secondary transfer, and alleged inconsistencies in scientific and witness evidence, were addressed at trial and did not require intervention on appeal. Exclusion of cross-examination into prior alleged false complaints was correct under s 293(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the statutory preconditions were not met. The verdicts were not inconsistent in law or logic and the appeal grounds were not made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'sexual Offences' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'dna and Forensic Evidence' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'inconsistent Verdicts']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'sexual Offences' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'dna and Forensic Evidence' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'inconsistent Verdicts']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on Counts 2 and 3 were unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence' 'Whether there was improper assessment or mishandling of scientific (DNA) evidence' 'Whether inconsistent verdicts required intervention' "Admissibility of complainant's previous allegations of sexual assault" 'Whether discrepancies in evidence regarding weapon (knife) should overturn conviction']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that, upon independent assessment, the jury’s verdicts of guilty on Counts 2 and 3 were open on the evidence. The possibility of DNA contamination or secondary transfer, and alleged inconsistencies in scientific and witness evidence, were addressed at trial and did not require intervention on appeal. Exclusion of cross-examination into prior alleged false complaints was correct under s 293(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the statutory preconditions were not met. The verdicts were not inconsistent in law or logic and the appeal grounds were not made out.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal' 'Appeal dismissed']