Makarov v R (No. 1) [2008] NSWCCA 291

Makarov v R (No. 1) [2008] NSWCCA 291

The appeal was dismissed because no error or miscarriage of justice was established. The Crown was not required to call the expert evidence proposed by the appellant; D's evidence and the supporting evidence were capable of supporting the convictions; alleged inconsistencies, time-frame issues, opportunity issues and pornography evidence were matters for the jury and did not make the verdicts unreasonable; the count 8 acquittal and count 9 conviction were rationally reconcilable; the challenged directions, evidentiary rulings, interpreter arrangements, bias allegations, counsel competence complaints and character-evidence complaint did not demonstrate any miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal From Convictions in the District Court Before Latham DCJ
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault Offences' 'unreasonable or Unsupported Verdicts' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'expert Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'admissions' 'hearsay' 'interpreter Facilities' 'apprehended Bias' 'competence of Counsel' 'character Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Assault Offences' 'unreasonable or Unsupported Verdicts' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'expert Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'admissions' 'hearsay' 'interpreter Facilities' 'apprehended Bias' 'competence of Counsel' 'character Evidence']

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 Convictions in the District Court Before Latham DCJ

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown was obliged to call expert evidence concerning psychological injury and the alleged impossibility of performing as a concert pianist while under stress from sexual abuse.' "Whether the verdicts were unreasonable or not able to be supported having regard to the evidence, including alleged inconsistencies in D's evidence." 'Whether the guilty verdict on count 9 was inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on count 8.' 'Whether the trial miscarried because simultaneous headphone translation facilities were not provided.' "Whether the trial Judge's directions were inadequate or erroneous." 'Whether the trial Judge was biased against the appellant.' "Whether trial counsel's conduct was incompetent and caused a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether evidence of admissions to A, B and C and evidence concerning deleted computer files was wrongly admitted.' 'Whether character evidence was wrongly rendered impossible to introduce.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because no error or miscarriage of justice was established. The Crown was not required to call the expert evidence proposed by the appellant; D's evidence and the supporting evidence were capable of supporting the convictions; alleged inconsistencies, time-frame issues, opportunity issues and pornography evidence were matters for the jury and did not make the verdicts unreasonable; the count 8 acquittal and count 9 conviction were rationally reconcilable; the challenged directions, evidentiary rulings, interpreter arrangements, bias allegations, counsel competence complaints and character-evidence complaint did not demonstrate any miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.']