SY v R [2018] NSWCCA 6

SY v R [2018] NSWCCA 6

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's repeated references to matters not suggested to witnesses, contrary to the agreed conduct of the trial, risked implying an obligation on the applicant and deflecting the jury from considering reasonable possibilities consistent with innocence. In light of those misdirections, and the evidence concerning the improbability of the alleged events and the complainant's subsequent involvement with the church and the applicant, the Court concluded that a reasonable doubt existed as to guilt and that the jury ought to have had that doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal From Conviction in the District Court of Nsw; Leave to Appeal Sought on Grounds Concerning Jury Directions and Unreasonable Verdict
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered; appellant ordered to be released forthwith.
Legal Topics
['indecent Assault' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'jury Directions' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'rule in Browne V Dunn' 'unreasonable Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['indecent Assault' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'jury Directions' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'rule in Browne V Dunn' 'unreasonable Verdict']

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 Against Conviction / Appeal From Conviction in the District Court of Nsw; Leave to Appeal Sought on Grounds Concerning Jury Directions and Unreasonable Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's directions about evidence that the complainant was not sighted at the church late at night misled or confused the jury regarding the onus and standard of proof." "Whether the trial judge's repeated references to matters not having been suggested to witnesses created a miscarriage of justice by implying an onus on the applicant or excluding reasonable possibilities of innocence from the jury's consideration." "Whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's repeated references to matters not suggested to witnesses, contrary to the agreed conduct of the trial, risked implying an obligation on the applicant and deflecting the jury from considering reasonable possibilities consistent with innocence. In light of those misdirections, and the evidence concerning the improbability of the alleged events and the complainant's subsequent involvement with the church and the applicant, the Court concluded that a reasonable doubt existed as to guilt and that the jury ought to have had that doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered; appellant ordered to be released forthwith.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The conviction is quashed.' 'The verdict of acquittal is entered.' 'Order that the Appellant be released forthwith.']