Simpson AJA at [1]; Rothman J at [89]; Ierace J at [326]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted;
(2) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIME – Conviction Appeal – Inconsistent verdicts – unreasonable verdicts – alleged confusion in case presented to jury – clear and unambiguous directions – no confusion as to factual basis of different counts – difference in verdicts accounted for by degree of independent corroborating evidence – no reasonable doubt – appeal dismissed
Counsel: T Hammond (Applicant) C Curtis (Respondent)
Solicitors: JPM Legal (Applicant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s):
2017/339025
Publication restriction:
Pursuant to s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings Act 1987 (NSW), publication of the name of the Applicant’s son in any way that connects him with criminal proceedings is prohibited.
Pursuant to s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), publication of any matter which could identify the complainant is prohibited.
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
24 July 2020
Before:
Norton SC DCJ
File Number(s):
2017/339025
Judgment
SIMPSON AJA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction in the District Court at Grafton on a count of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent. Leave is…
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 Cullen v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Cullen v R [2022] NSWCCA 63
Case
[2022] NSWCCA 63
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Cullen v R involved an appeal by the respondent against his conviction by the Supreme Court of New South Wales on four counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault. The respondent had been found guilty by a jury of multiple counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault following a trial. The appeal was based on the contention that the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable, and that there was confusion in the case presented to the jury. The respondent contended that the directions given by the trial judge were not clear and unambiguous, leading to confusion as to the factual basis of the different counts.
The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable, and whether there was confusion in the case presented to the jury. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge's directions were clear and unambiguous, and whether the difference in verdicts was accounted for by the degree of independent corroborating evidence. The court also had to consider whether the evidence was such that no reasonable doubt could be entertained as to the guilt of the respondent.
The court held that there was no confusion in the case presented to the jury and that the trial judge's directions were clear and unambiguous. The court found that the difference in verdicts was accounted for by the degree of independent corroborating evidence. The court concluded that the evidence was such that no reasonable doubt could be entertained as to the guilt of the respondent on all counts. The appeal was dismissed.