Cox v R [2015] NSWCCA 158

Cox v R [2015] NSWCCA 158

The complainant's evidence contained serious inconsistencies and demonstrable errors about central and peripheral matters, including whether the appellant bit or merely touched his penis, whether he complained to his mother and stepfather, and where the incident occurred. After giving due weight to the jury's advantage, the Court had a reasonable doubt and held that the evidence was insufficient to support a safe conviction; the conviction was therefore unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From a District Court Jury Conviction and Sentence; Appeal Determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered; appellant entitled to be released forthwith.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse With a Child Under 10' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'unsafe Conviction' 'child Complainant Evidence' 'appeal Against Conviction']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['sexual Intercourse With a Child Under 10' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'unsafe Conviction' 'child Complainant Evidence' 'appeal Against Conviction']

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 Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From a District Court Jury Conviction and Sentence; Appeal Determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the conviction was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.' "Whether discrepancies and inadequacies in the complainant's evidence meant there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted."]

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant's evidence contained serious inconsistencies and demonstrable errors about central and peripheral matters, including whether the appellant bit or merely touched his penis, whether he complained to his mother and stepfather, and where the incident occurred. After giving due weight to the jury's advantage, the Court had a reasonable doubt and held that the evidence was insufficient to support a safe conviction; the conviction was therefore unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered; appellant entitled to be released forthwith.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'The appeal be upheld and the conviction quashed.' 'A verdict of acquittal entered.' 'The appellant is entitled to be released forthwith.']