DL v The QueenCitation:[2018] HCA 26Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Edelman JJDate:20 Jun 2018Case Number:A38/2017Read more

DL v The QueenCitation:[2018] HCA 26Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Edelman JJDate:20 Jun 2018Case Number:A38/2017Read more

The trial judge's reasons were inadequate because they failed to identify the specific acts constituting the offence and did not sufficiently explain the process of reasoning in light of the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Unknown (Appellant); Respondent: Unknown (Respondent)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Trial by Judge Alone, Adequacy of Reasons, Sexual Offences, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Trial by Judge Alone Adequacy of Reasons Sexual Offences Credibility of Witnesses

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown (Appellant)

Appellant

Unknown (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's reasons were inadequate for failing to identify two or more acts constituting the offence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's reasons were inadequate for failing to explain the process of reasoning

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's reasons were inadequate because they failed to identify the specific acts constituting the offence and did not sufficiently explain the process of reasoning in light of the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • conviction quashed
  • matter remitted for retrial