Vasilevski v R [2019] NSWCCA 277

Vasilevski v R [2019] NSWCCA 277

The convictions were not unreasonable. The other acquittals did not require rejection of the complainant's credibility on Count 6, which was supported by prompt complaint, surrounding circumstances and medical evidence, and the jury was entitled to consider each count separately. The conviction on Count 9 was not...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Conviction and Aggregate Sentence Granted; Appeals Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal conviction granted; conviction appeal dismissed; leave to appeal aggregate sentence granted; sentence appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistency of Verdicts' 'influencing a Witness to Withhold True Evidence' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'inconsistency of Verdicts' 'influencing a Witness to Withhold True Evidence' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence']

Source-derived case record

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 Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Aggregate Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Conviction and Aggregate Sentence Granted; Appeals Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on Counts 6 and 9 were unreasonable within the meaning of s 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).' "Whether acquittals on other counts required doubt about the complainant's general credibility to be translated to Counts 6 and 9." 'Whether the acquittal on Count 7 was inconsistent with conviction on Count 9 for causing the complainant to write a statutory declaration with intent to influence her to withhold true evidence.' 'Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury that if the applicant influenced the complainant to give true evidence about sexual assault they must acquit.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive because the indicative sentences were manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were not unreasonable. The other acquittals did not require rejection of the complainant's credibility on Count 6, which was supported by prompt complaint, surrounding circumstances and medical evidence, and the jury was entitled to consider each count separately. The conviction on Count 9 was not necessarily inconsistent with the acquittal on Count 7 because the jury could have accepted that sexual intercourse occurred without the complainant's consent and that the applicant caused her to make the statutory declaration to withhold that true evidence, while still holding a reasonable doubt about whether the applicant knew she was not consenting. The additional direction...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal conviction granted; conviction appeal dismissed; leave to appeal aggregate sentence granted; sentence appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal conviction granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal aggregate sentence granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']