Legal Research
Cases
Dadley v R

Dadley v R

Case [2021] NSWCCA 267 9 November 2021

Criminal Liability

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Admissibility of Evidence

Reasonable Doubt

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Dadley v R [2021] NSWCCA 267
Hearing dates: 15 September 2021
Date of orders: 09 November 2021
Decision date: 09 November 2021
Before: Bell P at [1];
Walton J at [132];
Bellew J at [133]
Decision:
1.   Leave to appeal is granted.
2.   Appeal allowed.
3.   The applicant’s conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – appeal against conviction – where applicant charged with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and one count of indecent assault – where jury found the applicant not guilty of one count of sexual assault, but guilty of another count of sexual assault and indecent assault – where the events founding the three complaints were intertwined both temporally and contextually
CRIME – Appeals – appeal against conviction – inconsistent verdicts – where the guilty verdicts on two of the counts were inconsistent with the applicant’s acquittal on one count of sexual intercourse without consent – where the acquittal on the one count of sexual intercourse without consent was explicable only by doubts the jury must have held as to the complainant’s credibility – where the events founding the three complaints were intertwined both temporally and contextually
CRIME – Appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdicts – where verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence – where the complainant’s assessed state of intoxication and the implausibility in aspects of her account should have caused a doubt in the mind of the jury as to whether or not the applicant was guilty – where certain DNA evidence appeared to have been critical to the jury’s returning of a guilty verdict against the applicant – where such DNA evidence was more consistent with a secondary transfer as a result of the complainant having picked up the applicant’s DNA in relevantly innocuous circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 130A(3), 306I
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 137

Cases Cited:
Bussey v R [2020] NSWCCA 280
Director of Public Prosecutions v Paulino (2017) 54 VR 109; [2017] VSCA 38
DPP v Wise [2016] VSCA 173
Gage v R [2021] NSWCCA 222
Ganiji v R [2019] NSWCCA 208
Jafary v R [2018] NSWCCA 243
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56
Keen v R (2020) 102 NSWLR 178; [2020] NSWCCA 59
Kim v R [2020] NSWCCA 288
Long (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 212
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
Martin v R [2020] NSWCCA 192
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
ML v R [2015] NSWCCA 27
Nguyen v R [2021] NSWCCA 85
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Markuleski (2001)…

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 Dadley v R

Details

AGLC: Dadley v R [2021] NSWCCA 267
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 267
Decision Date: 09 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dadley was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault without consent and one count of indecent assault. He appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal, contending that the guilty verdicts on two counts were inconsistent with his acquittal on one count of sexual intercourse without consent. He also argued that the verdicts were unreasonable, and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence. Dadley claimed that the complainant's assessed state of intoxication and the implausibility in aspects of her account should have caused a doubt in the mind of the jury as to whether or not he was guilty. He submitted that certain DNA evidence appeared to have been critical to the jury's returning of a guilty verdict against him, but that such DNA evidence was more consistent with a secondary transfer as a result of the complainant having picked up his DNA in relevantly innocuous circumstances.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments made by Dadley and examined the evidence presented to the jury. The Court found that the guilty verdicts on two counts were indeed inconsistent with his acquittal on one count of sexual intercourse without consent, and that the acquittal was explicable only by doubts the jury must have held as to the complainant’s credibility. The Court also found that the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence. The Court concluded that the complainant’s assessed state of intoxication and the implausibility in aspects of her account should have caused a doubt in the mind of the jury as to whether or not Dadley was guilty. The Court further found that the DNA evidence was more consistent with a secondary transfer, and could not be relied upon to support the guilty verdicts.

Having considered all the evidence and arguments, the Court of Appeal quashed Dadley's convictions and ordered a retrial. The Court found that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable, and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence. The Court also found that the guilty verdicts on two counts were inconsistent with Dadley's acquittal on one count of sexual intercourse without consent, and that the acquittal was explicable only by doubts the jury must have held as to the complainant’s credibility. The Court concluded that Dadley was entitled to a retrial, and quashed his convictions accordingly.

Orders