Jones v R [2010] NSWCCA 117

Jones v R [2010] NSWCCA 117

The cumulative discrepancies and inadequacies in WA's evidence, attributable to gross intoxication and faulty recall, together particularly with unchallenged evidence from Mr Drennan that contradicted her account and supported the applicant's version, produced a reasonable doubt about guilt that the jury ought also to have experienced. The bruising evidence did not sufficiently corroborate non-consensual sexual intercourse because other causes were available on the evidence. The same disquiet extended to the larceny count, as there could be no confidence in WA's recollection of the arrangement authorising the applicant to withdraw money. A miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Leave and Appeal From District Court Convictions
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Convictions quashed. Verdicts of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
['unreasonable Verdict' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'larceny' 'witness Reliability' 'intoxication' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals' 'evidence'] ['unreasonable Verdict' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'larceny' 'witness Reliability' 'intoxication' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Leave and Appeal From District Court Convictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts for sexual intercourse without consent and larceny were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.' "Whether the cumulative discrepancies and inadequacies in WA's evidence required the Court to conclude that there was a reasonable doubt about the applicant's guilt." "Whether the evidence of bruising or other evidence sufficiently supported WA's account of non-consensual sexual intercourse." "Whether WA's poor recollection permitted confidence in her evidence about the arrangement authorising withdrawals from her bank account."]

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative discrepancies and inadequacies in WA's evidence, attributable to gross intoxication and faulty recall, together particularly with unchallenged evidence from Mr Drennan that contradicted her account and supported the applicant's version, produced a reasonable doubt about guilt that the jury ought also to have experienced. The bruising evidence did not sufficiently corroborate non-consensual sexual intercourse because other causes were available on the evidence. The same disquiet extended to the larceny count, as there could be no confidence in WA's recollection of the arrangement authorising the applicant to withdraw money. A miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Convictions quashed. Verdicts of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Convictions quashed.' 'Verdicts of acquittal entered.']