CEV v The Queen

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence by the appellant, CEV, following a jury trial in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The appellant had pleaded not guilty to five counts, including sexual intercourse without consent, indecent dealing with a child under sixteen with circumstances of aggravation, and administering a stupefying drug to the complainant.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in her directions to the jury regarding prior inconsistent statements, and whether she misdirected the jury concerning the procedure for majority verdicts. The Court was required to determine if the judge's directions on prior inconsistent statements were sufficiently specific to the facts of the case, and if her explanation of majority verdict procedures was consistent with established legal principles, particularly those in *Black v The Queen*.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in her directions. Her Honour had adequately explained how the principles concerning prior inconsistent statements applied to the evidence presented. Furthermore, when the jury inquired about the possibility of a majority verdict, the judge's direction, which informed them of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (NT) and their obligation to strive for unanimity, was deemed appropriate and consistent with legal precedent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, varying the sentence and non-parole period imposed. This variation was based on considerations of whether the sentences were excessive, whether the non-parole period was unduly long, and whether the sentences should have been concurrent to avoid double punishment, particularly in light of the offence involving sexual intercourse after the victim had been drugged.