Blake (a pseudonym) v The King - [2023] VSCA 52

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2022 0058

JASON BLAKE (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification of the victim of the sexual offending, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the applicant’s name.

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, T FORREST and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 March 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 March 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 52
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2021] VCC 1664 (Judge Chambers)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Appeal – Three charges of sexual offending against one complainant – Jury convicted applicant on two charges, but acquitted him on third charge – Whether verdicts inconsistent – Not reasonably arguable that verdicts inconsistent – Whether convictions unreasonable or unable to be supported – Inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence – Evidence of applicant’s good character – Whether it was open to jury to convict in light of quality of complainant’s evidence, inconsistencies in evidence, alleged implausibilities, evidence of applicant’s good character and applicant’s denials – Open to jury to convict on whole of the evidence – Any possible doubt capable of being resolved by jury’s advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses – Appeal dismissed.

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606, Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123, Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25, applied. R v Buckley (2004) 10 VR 215, Woods v The Queen [2019] VSCA 259, Palliyaguruge v The Queen [2022] VSCA 159, Charles (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] VSCA 166, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr J O’Connor
Respondent:		Ms D Piekusis KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Richard Davis & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
T FORREST JA
KAYE JA:

On 5 July 2021, following a six day trial in the County Court, the applicant was found guilty of one charge of committing an indecent act with a child under 16 (charge 1) and one charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 (charge 2). Charge 2 was a course of conduct charge.[2] The applicant was acquitted of a third charge (charge 3) which alleged a separate occasion of sexual penetration with a child under 16. On 22 October 2021, following a plea hearing, the applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and three months.[3]
[2]See cl 4A of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
[3]DPP v Blake(a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 1664 (‘Sentencing Reasons’).
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction. The applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal are as follows:
1.The jury’s verdicts on charges 1 and 2 are unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
2.The convictions on charges 1…

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 Blake (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Blake (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 52
Case: [2023] VSCA 52
Decision Date: 16 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blake (a pseudonym) v The King involved the applicant, Blake, who was convicted by a jury on two counts of sexual offending against a single complainant but was acquitted on a third count. The applicant appealed against his convictions, arguing that the verdicts were inconsistent, unreasonable, or unable to be supported by the evidence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the appeal.

The legal issues the court had to resolve included whether the verdicts were inconsistent, whether the convictions were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and whether the jury could convict given the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the applicant's good character, and his denials. The court had to examine the quality of the complainant's evidence, any inconsistencies, the alleged implausibilities, and the overall weight of the evidence presented.

The court found that it was not reasonably arguable that the verdicts were inconsistent. It held that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, along with the other factors, did not prevent the jury from convicting the applicant. The court noted that the jury had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, which allowed them to resolve any doubts. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the convictions were supported by the evidence, and the jury's decision was reasonable.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders