SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Agresti v The Queen |
Citation: | [2017] ACTCA 20 |
Hearing Date: | 1 November 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 1 November 2016; 11 May 2017 |
ReasonsDate: | 11 May 2017 |
Before: | Refshauge, Burns and Rangiah JJ |
Decision: | 1 November 2016 1. The appeal be upheld. 2. The convictions and sentences be set aside. 3. The Appellant be granted bail with conditions pending the making of further orders and the delivery of the Court’s reasons. 4. The name [Redacted for legal reasons] or anything that may identify her in these proceedings is not to be published outside of the Courtroom. 11 May 2017 1. Leave be granted to the Appellant under r 5531 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) to raise grounds 2 and 3 in the Notice of Appeal. 2. There will be a new trial on Count 1. 3. The publication of this judgment be prohibited until the conclusion of the trial on Count 1. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Supreme Court – trial by jury – appeal against conviction – particular offences – offences against the person – sexual offences – sexual intercourse without consent – intoxication of the complainant – where the complainant had “snippets of memories” – whether the complainant was unconscious during sexual intercourse – whether the appellant was reckless as to the complainant’s consent. CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Supreme Court – trial by jury – appeal against conviction – trial judge’s direction to jury – whether the complainant’s consent was caused by the effect of intoxicating liquor – correct test for causation under s 67(1)(e) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – trial judge’s direction erroneous – appeal upheld on this ground – conviction and sentence set aside – new trial ordered. CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Supreme Court – trial by jury – appeal against conviction – whether verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence – open to the jury to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt – appeal dismissed on this ground. |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), r 5531 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 54, 67 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 21 |
Cases Cited: | Arulthilakan v The Queen [2003] HCA 74; 78 ALJR 257 Davies v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 19 |
Continue reading Agresti v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Agresti v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 20
- Case
- [2017] ACTCA 20
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the complainant was unconscious during the sexual intercourse, and consequently unable to consent, and whether the appellant was reckless regarding her consent. Crucially, the court had to determine the correct test for causation under s 67(1)(e) of the *Crimes Act 1900* (ACT) concerning whether the complainant's consent was caused by the effect of intoxicating liquor. The court also considered whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the causation of consent by intoxication was erroneous. This error led the court to uphold the appeal on this ground, setting aside the conviction and sentence and ordering a new trial. However, the court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable, finding that it was open to the jury to have found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be upheld, the convictions and sentences be set aside, and a new trial be ordered on Count 1. The appellant was granted bail pending further orders and the delivery of the court's reasons, with a prohibition on the publication of the judgment until the conclusion of the new trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
1 November 2016
1. The appeal be upheld.
2. The convictions and sentences be set aside.
3. The Appellant be granted bail with conditions pending the making of further orders and the delivery of the Court’s reasons.
4. The name [Redacted for legal reasons] or anything that may identify her in these proceedings is not to be published outside of the Courtroom.
11 May 2017
1. Leave be granted to the Appellant under r 5531 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) to raise grounds 2 and 3 in the Notice of Appeal.
2. There will be a new trial on Count 1.
3. The publication of this judgment be prohibited until the conclusion of the trial on Count 1.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.