Regina v Grujevski [2004] NSWCCA 117

Regina v Grujevski [2004] NSWCCA 117

The verdicts were not inconsistent in logic or reason. The acquittals on the second and third counts could be explained by the absence of corroboration for the precise alleged indecent touching and attempted fellatio inside the house, whereas the first count was supported by corroborated evidence that the appellant detained the complainant near the van and by dragging her into vacant premises. On the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant taking the complainant to isolated vacant premises and the evidence of the struggle, it was open to the jury to infer an intent to obtain sexual gratification and to convict on the first count beyond reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'multiple Counts in Indictment' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unsafe or Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'detention Without Consent With Intent to Obtain Sexual Gratification']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'multiple Counts in Indictment' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unsafe or Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'detention Without Consent With Intent to Obtain Sexual Gratification']

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 verdict of guilty on the first count was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence and the acquittals on the other two counts in the indictment.' 'Whether the conviction on the first count was factually inconsistent with the verdicts of not guilty on the second and third counts.' 'Whether it was open to the jury to infer that the appellant detained the complainant with intent to obtain an advantage, namely sexual gratification.']

Ratio Decidendi

The verdicts were not inconsistent in logic or reason. The acquittals on the second and third counts could be explained by the absence of corroboration for the precise alleged indecent touching and attempted fellatio inside the house, whereas the first count was supported by corroborated evidence that the appellant detained the complainant near the van and by dragging her into vacant premises. On the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant taking the complainant to isolated vacant premises and the evidence of the struggle, it was open to the jury to infer an intent to obtain sexual gratification and to convict on the first count beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']