Beattie v R - [2020] NSWCCA 334

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Beattie v R [2020] NSWCCA 334
Hearing dates: 26 November 2020
Date of orders: 26 November 2020
Decision date: 14 December 2020
Before: Johnson J at [1];
R A Hulme J at [101]
Wilson J at [102]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to the Applicant under Rule 4 Criminal Appeal Rules to rely upon Ground 2.
2. Allow the appeal against conviction at the Sydney District Court on 6 March 2020 for an offence under s.61I Crimes Act 1900.
3. Quash the conviction and order that there be a retrial.

Catchwords:
APPEAL – appeal against conviction – offences of having sexual intercourse without consent knowing that the complainant was not consenting – whether jury misdirected on effect of substantial intoxication concerning complainant’s capacity to consent – whether jury misdirected concerning consent where issue raised whether complainant had mistaken belief as to identity of the person engaging in sexual intercourse with her - consideration of s.61HA Crimes Act 1900 - comparison with successor provision in s.61HE – Crown concession of error – error established – conviction quashed – retrial ordered

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Act 2018
Jury Act 1977

Cases Cited:
Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71
Bochkov v R [2009] NSWCCA 166
Gillard v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 606; [2014] HCA 16
Tabbah v R [2017] NSWCCA 55
Tonari v R (2013) 237 A Crim R 490; [2013] NSWCCA 232

Texts Cited:
---

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joshua Henry Beattie (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Smith (Applicant)
Mr B Hatfield (Respondent)
Solicitors:
McGirr Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/381464
Publication restriction: The previous restriction upon publication has been lifted following the return of verdicts at the retrial on 1 March 2021.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

---

Citation:

---

Date of Decision:

06 March 2020

Before:

His Honour Judge Mahony SC

File Number(s):

2018/381464

Judgment

JOHNSON J: By Notice of Appeal filed on 22 September 2020, the Appellant, Joshua Henry Beattie, appealed against his conviction by a jury at the Sydney District Court on 6 March 2020 upon a charge of having sexual intercourse without consent, knowing that the complainant was not consenting, contrary to s.61I Crimes Act 1900.

Appeal Against Conviction Prior to Sentencing

The Appellant stood trial before his Honour Judge Mahony SC and a jury upon two counts, each of which alleged that between 25 May 2018 and 26 May 2018 at [location] in the State of New South Wales, he did have sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting contrary to s.61I Crimes Act 1900.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on Count 1, but could not reach a verdict on Count…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beattie v R

Details

AGLC: Beattie v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 334
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 334
Decision Date: 14 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Beattie, appealed against his conviction for multiple counts of having sexual intercourse without consent knowing that the complainant was not consenting. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central issue was whether the jury was misdirected on the effect of the substantial intoxication of the complainant concerning her capacity to consent and whether the jury was misdirected on the issue of consent where the complainant had a mistaken belief as to the identity of the person engaging in sexual intercourse with her. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of section 61HA of the Crimes Act 1900, and its successor provision, section 61HE.

The court examined whether the jury was adequately directed on the legal principles concerning consent and intoxication. It considered whether the jury could have reasonably concluded that the complainant was incapable of consenting due to her intoxication. The court also assessed whether the jury was properly informed on the effect of the complainant’s mistaken belief about the identity of her partner on the issue of consent. Given the Crown’s concession of error, the court determined that there had indeed been a misdirection. This misdirection was sufficient to vitiate the convictions.

Consequently, the court quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial. The error identified by the court undermined the reliability of the jury’s findings, thus necessitating a new trial to ensure a fair determination of the charges. The court emphasised the importance of proper jury directions in cases involving consent and intoxication to safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Orders