Carlyle-Watson v R [2019] NSWCCA 226

Carlyle-Watson v R [2019] NSWCCA 226

The appeal against conviction was allowed because the Crown opened the case as one based on joint criminal enterprise and never told the jury that this case had been abandoned or modified, while the directions did not clearly identify the basis of liability. If the case was accessorial liability, the jury was misdirected by being left with the clear impression that recklessness as to the complainant's consent was sufficient, when the Crown had to prove actual knowledge of the essential facts and intentional assistance or encouragement. The errors were fundamental, constituted a miscarriage of justice, and the proviso did not apply because the Court could not exclude the possibility that a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction granted; leave to appeal against sentence refused; appeal against conviction allowed; conviction set aside; matter remitted to the District Court arraignment list.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'accessorial Liability' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'jury Directions' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'criminal Appeal Proviso']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['aggravated Sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'accessorial Liability' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'jury Directions' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'criminal Appeal Proviso']

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 and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the failure to identify whether the applicant was liable as an accessory present at the scene or as a party to a joint criminal enterprise.' 'Whether the trial conflated the meaning of "in company" with "common purpose" or accessorial liability.' 'Whether the trial judge failed to direct clearly whether the Crown case was joint criminal enterprise or accessorial liability.' "Whether, if the Crown case was based on accessorial liability, the jury should have been directed that the Crown had to prove the applicant's actual knowledge that the complainant did not consent."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction was allowed because the Crown opened the case as one based on joint criminal enterprise and never told the jury that this case had been abandoned or modified, while the directions did not clearly identify the basis of liability. If the case was accessorial liability, the jury was misdirected by being left with the clear impression that recklessness as to the complainant's consent was sufficient, when the Crown had to prove actual knowledge of the essential facts and intentional assistance or encouragement. The errors were fundamental, constituted a miscarriage of justice, and the proviso did not apply because the Court could not exclude the possibility that a...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction granted; leave to appeal against sentence refused; appeal against conviction allowed; conviction set aside; matter remitted to the District Court arraignment list.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against conviction granted.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence refused.' 'Appeal against conviction allowed.' "Set aside the applicant's conviction." 'Remit the matter to the District Court arraignment list on Friday 4 October 2019.']