Legal Research
Cases
Booth v The King

Booth v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 318 18 December 2024

Type to search within this case.

tSUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0233

GREGORY BOOTH	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KENNEDY and ORR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 October 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 December 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 318
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 1814 (Judge Karapanagiotidis)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Thirty-four charges of sexual offending over 10 incidents involving two complainants – Jury convicted applicant of ten charges – Whether verdicts of guilt inconsistent with acquittals where charged offences closely linked in time as part of same incident – Whether verdicts of guilt inconsistent with acquittals across different incidents – Whether acquittals meant that jury rejected complainant’s credibility – Verdicts of guilt explicable on basis that evidence supporting each charge differed in quality or was corroborated, particularly on issues of complainant’s age, consent and belief in consent.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Whether purported lies, inconsistencies and implausibilities in complainant’s evidence rendered verdicts unreasonable – Discrepancies attributable to passage of more than 30 years since offending – Complainant’s evidence not so improbable that it could not be accepted by a reasonable jury – Leave to appeal refused.

Abdel (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] VSCA 36; Brooks (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] VSCA 305; Frank (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] VSCA 37; Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; Schliefert v The King [2024] VSCA 197; Sladek v The King [2024] VSCA 119; Sriranganathan v The King [2024] VSCA 257.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr T Kassimatis KC with Mr RJ de Kretser
Respondent:		Ms EH Ruddle KC with Ms BJ Goding
Solicitors
Applicant:	Tony Hargreaves & Partners
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
KENNEDY JA
ORR JA:

The applicant, who is now 60 years old,[1] pleaded not guilty to 34 charges alleging sexual offending against two female complainants over the period between 1985 and 1995. The charges concerned 10 distinct incidents of alleged offending. They included a number of alternative charges.
[1]DPP v Booth [2023] VCC 1814, [43] (Judge Karapanagiotidis).
The complainant in relation to nine of those incidents was Ms Seraphina Cook,[2] who is now in her early 50s. It was alleged that Seraphina was 12 years old at the time of the first offending against her, 15 years old for the majority of the alleged offending, and between 21 and 22 years old at the time of the last alleged offending.
[2]A pseudonym.
The complainant in relation to the remaining incident was Ms Trudy Parker,[3] who is also in her early 50s. Trudy was 16 years old at the time of the alleged offending.
[3]A pseudonym.
Seraphina and Trudy were friends. Seraphina’s older brother, Billy Cook,[4] was the applicant’s best friend. Billy was in a relationship with Trudy’s older sister, Emily Hislop.[5] Throughout…

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 Booth v The King

Details

AGLC: Booth v The King [2024] VSCA 318
Case: [2024] VSCA 318
Decision Date: 18 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Booth, has appealed against his conviction by a jury on ten of thirty-four charges of sexual offences involving two complainants. The trial judge convicted Booth of ten charges and acquitted him of the remaining charges. The Supreme Court of Victoria considered whether the jury’s verdicts of guilt were inconsistent with the acquittals, particularly where the charged offences were closely linked in time as part of the same incident. The court examined whether the acquittals meant that the jury rejected the complainant's credibility and whether the verdicts of guilt could be explained by differences in the quality of evidence or corroboration, especially concerning the complainant's age, consent, and belief in consent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, given the acquittals on charges that were closely linked in time. The court considered whether the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence rendered the verdicts unreasonable. The court reasoned that the discrepancies could be attributed to the passage of more than 30 years since the offending, and the complainant's evidence was not so improbable that it could not be accepted by a reasonable jury. The court found that the evidence supporting each charge differed in quality or was corroborated, particularly on issues of the complainant's age, consent, and belief in consent.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the discrepancies in the complainant's evidence were attributable to the passage of time and did not render the verdicts unreasonable. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt on the ten charges and rejected the argument that the acquittals indicated a rejection of the complainant's credibility. The court found that the verdicts of guilt were explicable on the basis that the evidence supporting each charge differed in quality or was corroborated. The appeal was dismissed, and the original convictions were upheld.

Orders