Legal Research
Cases
Dean v The The Queen

Dean v The The Queen

Case [2022] NSWCCA 122 15 June 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dean v R [2022] NSWCCA 122
Hearing dates: 11 May 2022
Date of orders: 15 June 2022
Decision date: 15 June 2022
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Rothman J [46];
Dhanji J at [47]
Decision:
Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against conviction — whether guilty verdicts unreasonable by reason of inconsistency with not guilty verdict — logical and rational basis for distinction drawn by jury

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61M(2), 66C(1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1)

Cases Cited:
BF v R [2019] NSWCCA 321
DS v R [2021] NSWCCA
Ganiji v R [2019] NSWCCA 208
Holloway v R [2017] NSWCCA 17
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MA v R [2022] NSWCCA 61
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
MG v R [2017] NSWCCA 14
Nguyen v R [2017] NSWCCA 145
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v TK (2009) 74 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCCA 151
Shiv v R [2021] NSWCCA 245
Vasilevski v R [2019] NSWCCA 277
Z (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 8

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nicholas Leighton Dean (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Hall SC (Applicant)
C Curtis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/342632
Publication restriction: Non-publication order in respect of the name of the complainant.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

19 May 2021

Before:

Buscombe DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/342632

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: In May 2021 the applicant stood trial in the District Court before a judge and jury on five counts of sexual assault and indecent assault of a child who was the daughter of a friend of the applicant.
The charges and verdicts were as follows.
Count 1 charged that the applicant indecently assaulted the complainant by touching her clitoris when she was three or four years of age, contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The jury returned a directed verdict of not guilty after the trial judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the alleged offence occurred within the date range particularised (1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009).
The remaining counts all related to acts alleged to have occurred in 2016 or 2017 in the course of an incident which took place at a house at Galston occupied by the applicant, his friend and, at times, the complainant who is the daughter of the applicant’s friend.
Count 2…

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 Dean v The The Queen

Details

AGLC: Dean v The The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 122
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 122
Decision Date: 15 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dean v The Queen involved an appeal against a conviction by the appellant, who sought to overturn his convictions for murder and attempted murder. The appeal was grounded in the argument that the guilty verdicts were unreasonable due to their inconsistency with the not guilty verdict for another charge. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding this appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the guilty verdicts in the murder and attempted murder charges were unreasonable in light of the not guilty verdict for another charge. This required the Court to examine whether there was a logical and rational basis for the distinctions drawn by the jury in their verdicts across the different charges. The Court needed to assess whether the jury's findings were consistent and whether any inconsistencies undermined the safety of the convictions.

The Court examined the jury's reasoning and concluded that there was a logical and rational basis for the distinctions drawn by the jury. The verdicts were seen as consistent with the evidence presented, and the jury's decision-making process was deemed to be within the bounds of reason. The Court held that the guilty verdicts were not unreasonable and therefore affirmed the convictions. The appeal was dismissed, and the original convictions were upheld.

The Court's decision clarified the standards for assessing the reasonableness of jury verdicts and reinforced the principle that juries are entitled to draw distinctions between different charges based on the evidence presented to them. The final orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the convictions for murder and attempted murder be upheld.

Orders