Black v The Queen - [2013] NSWCCA 183

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Black v R [2013] NSWCCA 183
Hearing dates: 25 June 2013
Decision date: 06 August 2013
Before: Basten JA at [1]
R A Hulme J at [2]
Garling J at [118]
Decision:
Leave to appeal against conviction refused

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - convictions for sexual offences - whether verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence - no question of principle
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Jones v R [1997] HCA 56; 191 CLR 439
Lee, Do Young v Regina [2013] NSWCCA 68
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v R [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
SKA v R [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Stephen Stanley Black
Regina
Representation: Counsel:
Applicant in person
Ms T Smith (Crown)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2007/7395
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2008-12-11 00:00:00

Before:

Coolahan DCJ

File Number(s):

2007/7395

Judgment

BASTEN JA: I agree with R A Hulme J that the present application is to be understood as a challenge to the jury verdict on the ground that it was unreasonable, or could not be supported, having regard to the evidence: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1). Having considered all of the matters raised by the applicant, including the transcript of the text messages which was not in evidence (but is referred to by R A Hulme J), in accordance with the principles identified in Lee, Do Young v Regina [2013] NSWCCA 68 at [196]-[210], I agree with R A Hulme J that the application should be dismissed.

R A HULME J: Mr Stephen Black ("the applicant") was arraigned on 26 May 2008 before Coolahan DCJ and entered pleas of not guilty to four counts of aggravated sexual assault (s 61J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)), two counts of indecent assault (s 61L), one count of inciting an act of indecency (s 61N(2)) and one count of larceny (s 117).

On 13 June 2008, a jury returned verdicts of guilty for each of the sexual offences and a verdict of not guilty for the larceny offence. The applicant was sentenced on 11 December 2008.

An application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was filed on 19 September 2011. There was some confusion at the hearing about whether an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was required. It has since been found that the Registrar of the Court extended time until 30 October 2011.

The applicant appeared in person in respect of his application for leave to appeal against conviction. He informed the Court that consideration is being given by Legal Aid New South Wales to the proposed appeal against sentence. It would seem his case is among those that are being reviewed…

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 Black v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Black v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 183
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 183
Decision Date: 06 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Black v The Queen, the appellant was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland of various sexual offences. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The appeal to the High Court of Australia sought to overturn the convictions on the basis that they were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The court was required to determine whether the jury's findings were so unreasonable that no reasonable jury could have found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented.

The legal issues before the court involved the standard of proof required in criminal cases and the scope of appellate review. The appellant's argument centred on the contention that the jury's verdicts were not open to them on the evidence and were therefore unreasonable. The court examined the evidence and the trial judge's directions to the jury, assessing whether the jury's conclusions were beyond the bounds of what a properly directed jury could have reached. The court held that the jury's verdicts were open to them based on the evidence, and therefore, the verdicts were not unreasonable.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that an appellate court should not lightly interfere with the findings of a jury, provided the jury's verdict is supported by the evidence and is not so unreasonable as to amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the evidence, when considered in its entirety, supported the jury's findings. The reasoning included a detailed analysis of the evidence, the trial judge's directions, and the principles of criminal law concerning the standard of proof and the role of an appellate court. The court concluded that no error of law had occurred, and the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court confirmed the appellant's convictions, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the convictions and sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland be affirmed.

Orders