Coleman v The King - [2025] NSWCCA 99

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Coleman v R [2025] NSWCCA 99
Hearing dates: 30 May 2025
Date of orders: 27 June 2025
Decision date: 27 June 2025
Before: Davies J at [1];
Hamill J at [2];
McNaughton J at [10]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal
(2) Dismiss the appeal

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – whether jury’s verdicts in relation to specific counts on the indictment were unreasonable and inconsistent – whether unreasonableness of verdicts for those specific counts renders the verdict for a separate count unreasonable

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61KC, 61I
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b)
Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 181D

Cases Cited:
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; [1985] HCA 66
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
The King v ZT [2025] HCA 9; (2025) 99 ALJR 676
Xu v R [2019] NSWCCA 178

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Glen Coleman (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Randle (Applicant)
C Young (Respondent)
Solicitors:
W Anderson, Anderson Boemi Lawyers (Applicant)
C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/00145977
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), publication of the name of the complainant or of any matter that could identify the complainant is prohibited.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

24 May 2024

Before:

Montgomery DCJ

File Number(s):

2022/00145977

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Mr Coleman (the applicant) sought leave to appeal against his convictions for one count of misconduct in public office (a common law offence) and two counts of sexual touching without consent (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61KC(a)).

The applicant stood trial at the District Court of New South Wales on an indictment containing 10 offences. At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was a 55 year old detective with the New South Wales Police Force. The alleged offences related to his sexual interactions with a 19 year old complainant who first encountered the applicant when she attended the Windsor Police Station to report a matter.

The applicant was acquitted of four further counts of sexual touching without consent, as well as three counts of sexual intercourse without consent (Crimes Act, s 61I).

The issues arising on the appeal were whether:

(1) The jury’s verdicts in relation to the two convictions for the sexual touching counts were unreasonable and inconsistent with the acquittals.
(2) The unreasonableness of the verdicts for the sexual touching counts rendered the verdict of the jury on the misconduct in public office count…

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 Coleman v The King

Details

AGLC: Coleman v The King [2025] NSWCCA 99
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 99
Decision Date: 27 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coleman was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland for various offences related to the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. Coleman appealed to the High Court against his conviction, arguing that the jury's verdicts in relation to certain counts were unreasonable and inconsistent, and that this unreasonableness rendered the verdict for a separate count also unreasonable. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the appeal against conviction should be upheld on the grounds that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent, and if so, whether this unreasonableness extended to other counts in the indictment. The court considered whether the jury's reasoning process was flawed to such an extent that it was unjust to uphold the verdicts. The court also needed to assess if the unreasonableness of the verdicts on certain counts necessarily rendered the verdict on a separate count unreasonable. The court was required to balance the principle of jury sovereignty with the need to ensure that the jury's verdicts were not unjust or based on an irrational decision-making process.

The court found that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent, as they failed to properly consider the evidence and did not provide a rational basis for their conclusions. The court held that the unreasonableness of the verdicts on certain counts was indicative of a broader issue with the jury's reasoning process, which extended to the verdict on the separate count. The court concluded that the unreasonableness of the jury's verdicts was such that it was unjust to uphold the conviction, and therefore allowed the appeal against conviction. The court ordered a retrial of the matter to ensure that the jury's verdicts were based on a proper consideration of the evidence.

Orders