Daaboul v R

The appellant, Daaboul, was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland of aggravated sexual assault but the jury failed to reach a verdict on several other charges, including sexual assault and choking with intent to commit a sexual offence. The appellant appealed against the conviction on the basis that the jury's failure to agree on the other charges meant that the conviction on the charge of aggravated sexual assault was inconsistent and unreasonable. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which held that the jury's failure to agree on the other charges did not mean that the conviction on the charge of aggravated sexual assault was inconsistent or unreasonable. The Court of Appeal held that the jury's failure to agree on the other charges did not mean that the jury had reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt on the charge of aggravated sexual assault, and that the conviction on that charge was safe and satisfactory.

The Court of Appeal considered the legal principles that applied to appeals against convictions where the jury had failed to agree on some charges but had convicted the appellant on other charges. The Court of Appeal held that the principles of inconsistent verdicts did not apply where the jury had failed to agree on some charges, and that the conviction on the charge of aggravated sexual assault was not inconsistent with the jury's failure to agree on the other charges. The Court of Appeal also held that the conviction on the charge of aggravated sexual assault was not unreasonable, even though the jury had failed to agree on the other charges, because the jury had heard all of the evidence and had been able to assess the credibility of the complainant and the supporting evidence. The Court of Appeal held that the jury's failure to agree on the other charges did not mean that there was reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt on the charge of aggravated sexual assault, and that the conviction on that charge was safe and satisfactory.

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence that had been presented at the trial, including the evidence of the complainant and the supporting evidence, and held that the jury had been entitled to convict the appellant on the charge of aggravated sexual assault. The Court of Appeal held that the complainant's evidence was credible and that the supporting evidence was sufficient to support the conviction on the charge of aggravated sexual assault. The Court of Appeal held that the jury's failure to agree on the other charges did not mean that there was reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt on the charge of aggravated sexual assault, and that the conviction on that charge was safe and satisfactory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction and upheld the conviction on the charge of aggravated sexual assault.