Meagher JA at [1]; Wilson J at [93]; N Adams J at [94]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal on ground 1.
(2) Allow the appeal against conviction.
(3) Quash the convictions on counts 1, 2 and 6 and in lieu thereof enter verdicts of acquittal on those counts.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – multiple charges of sexual offences against same child complainant – where only direct evidence of offending was complainant’s complaint and testimony – where jury acquitted applicant of 3 counts and convicted of 3 counts – whether acquittals necessarily diminished the overall credibility of the complainant’s evidence such that remaining convictions could not reasonably be supported and accordingly were not “open” to the jury.
Etb Legal (Applicant) NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):
2016/247479
Publication restriction:
A person shall not publish any matter which identifies the complainant or any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 578A.
The name of a person must not be published or broadcast in a way that connects the person with the proceedings: Children…
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 Collins v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Collins v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 198
Case
[2020] NSWCCA 198
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Collins v R involved an appeal against conviction by the respondent on multiple charges of sexual offences against the same child complainant. The crux of the matter lay in the reliability and credibility of the complainant’s testimony as the sole direct evidence of the alleged offences. The jury returned a mixed verdict, acquitting the respondent of three counts while convicting him of three others. The appeal centred on whether the acquittals on certain counts necessarily undermined the credibility of the complainant’s evidence to such an extent that the remaining convictions could not reasonably be supported.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the acquittals on some counts, which involved similar acts against the same complainant, diminished the overall credibility of her evidence to the point where the convictions could not be considered reasonable. The respondent argued that the acquittals should have led to an acquittal on all counts, as the jury's acceptance of the complainant's evidence in part but not in full indicated an inconsistency that rendered the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court had to determine whether the jury's partial acceptance of the complainant's evidence could logically coexist with the remaining convictions.
The court found that the jury’s decision to acquit on some counts did not necessarily mean that the remaining convictions were unreasonable. The jury, as the trier of fact, was entitled to accept parts of the complainant’s testimony while rejecting other parts. This selective acceptance does not automatically cast doubt on the overall credibility of the evidence supporting the convictions. The court held that the jury’s verdict could be upheld if there was a reasonable basis for the convictions based on the evidence presented. In this case, the jury had a rational basis to convict on the remaining counts, and therefore, the convictions were not unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were affirmed.