BF v R

Case [2019] NSWCCA 321 24 December 2019

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: BF v R [2019] NSWCCA 321
Hearing dates: 16 October 2019
Date of orders: 24 December 2019
Decision date: 24 December 2019
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Johnson J at [53];
R A Hulme J at [54]
Decision:
(1) In lieu of the suppression order made in the District Court on 12 June 2018, order pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) that for a period of 5 years from the date of this order publication of any information tending to reveal the identity of the complainant, the applicant, any of their children or any witnesses or persons named in the trial (other than police officers) in connection with these proceedings be prohibited.
(2) Order (1) is made on the grounds stated in ss 8(1)(a), (c) and (d) of that Act and is to apply throughout the Commonwealth.
(3) Grant leave to appeal against the applicant’s convictions.
(4) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords: CRIME – conviction appeal – whether unreasonable verdicts – sexual and violent acts committed against de facto partner – whether jury’s verdicts of not guilty on ten counts and guilty on three others are inconsistent – logical and reasonable explanations available for verdicts – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 7, 8(1), 12
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33(1), 35(4), 66I, 66J, 93G
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b)
Cases Cited: Holloway v R [2017] NSWCCA 17
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 12
Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
MG v R [2017] NSWCCA 14
Nguyen v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 145
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v TK (2009) 74 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCCA 151
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: BF (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Hughes (Applicant)
B Hatfield (Respondent)
Solicitors:
AA Criminal Lawyer (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/363277
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

12 June 2018

File Number(s):

2015/363277

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: The applicant was tried in the District Court before a jury on 13 charges arising out of sexual or violent acts alleged to have been committed by the applicant in relation to his female de facto partner (“the complainant”) over a period of approximately 13 years. The applicant pleaded not guilty to all 13 counts on the indictment.
Six counts related to offences contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) of having sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting (counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 12 and 13). A further count charged the aggravated form of this offence, pursuant to s 61J of the Crimes Act, the circumstance of aggravation being that…

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 BF v R

Details

AGLC: BF v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 321
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 321
Decision Date: 24 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against the appellant’s conviction was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual and violent offences against his de facto partner, with the jury finding him not guilty on ten counts and guilty on three others. The appeal questioned the consistency of the jury’s verdicts, suggesting that there was no logical or reasonable explanation for the disparity in findings. The appellant argued that the verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent, warranting a reconsideration of the findings.

The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent. The appeal hinged on whether there was a logical or reasonable explanation for the jury finding the appellant not guilty on the majority of the counts but guilty on three others. The central issue was whether the jury's decision was so unreasonable that it should be set aside. The court also needed to consider the broader context of the evidence presented and the jury’s reasoning process.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury’s verdicts, although seemingly inconsistent, were not unreasonable. The court observed that there were logical and reasonable explanations for the jury’s decision, considering the evidence and the potential for differing interpretations of the facts. The court held that the jury had the discretion to assess the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence, and the verdicts were within the realm of reasonable outcomes given the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the jury's verdicts as lawful and appropriate.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, maintaining the original verdicts and convictions as determined by the jury. The appellant's conviction on three counts of sexual and violent offences against his de facto partner was upheld. The court's decision underscored the deference given to the jury’s role in assessing the evidence and making findings of fact.

Orders