Legal Research
Cases
Bennett v The King

Bennett v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 126 15 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bennett v R [2025] NSWCCA 126
Hearing dates: 6 August 2025
Date of orders: 15 August 2025
Decision date: 15 August 2025
Before: Price AJA at [1];
Ierace J at [91];
Rigg J at [92]
Decision:
(1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal against the conviction.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – where applicant found guilty of one count of intentionally sexually touching a child under the age of 10 years – whether reasonable possibility complainant’s evidence was a result of a hallucination

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66A(1), 66DA
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1)(b), 6(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 294G(1)

Cases Cited:
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
Dickson v R (2017) 94 NSWLR 476; [2017] NSWCCA 78
Doggett v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 343; [2001] HCA 46
Hanna v R [2023] NSWCCA 182
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Marco v R [2023] NSWCCA 307
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9; (2006) 80 ALJR 614
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v ZT [2025] HCA 9; (2025) 99 ALJR 676
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510; [1974] HCA 35
RM v R [2024] NSWCCA 148
SKA v R (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
Smith v R [2025] NSWCCA 104
Xiao v R [2022] NSWCCA 95

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joshua Allan Bennett (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
K H Averre (Applicant)
A Brown (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ramsland Laidler Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/145047
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), the publication of any matter which could identify the complainant and members of the complainant’s family is prohibited.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

6 February 2024

Before:

McGrath SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2022/145047

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 6 February 2024, following a trial by jury in the District Court, the applicant, Joshua Allan Bennett, was found guilty of one count of intentionally sexually touching the complainant, ES, a child under the age of 10 years, contrary to s 66DA(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) between 1 August 2019 and 25 December 2019 (“Count 2”). He was acquitted of the offence of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 years, contrary to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act (“Count 1”).

On 16 July 2024, the applicant was…

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 Bennett v The King

Details

AGLC: Bennett v The King [2025] NSWCCA 126
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 126
Decision Date: 15 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bennett was charged with one count of intentionally sexually touching a child under the age of 10 years. He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to imprisonment. Bennett appealed against his conviction, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable, as there was a reasonable possibility that the complainant's evidence was a result of a hallucination. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable. The court needed to consider whether there was a reasonable possibility that the complainant's evidence was a result of a hallucination. The court also needed to consider whether the verdict was so unsupportable that it could not be left to stand.

The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable. The court found that there was no evidence to support the suggestion that the complainant's evidence was a result of a hallucination. The court also found that the jury was entitled to reject the suggestion that the complainant's evidence was unreliable, as there was no evidence to support this suggestion. The court found that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and was not so unsupportable that it could not be left to stand. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders.

Orders