Drew Anthony Moffitt v Regina - [2002] NSWCCA 73

CITATION: Drew Anthony Moffitt v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 73

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60545/01

HEARING DATE(S): 8 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 March 2002

PARTIES :

Drew Anthony Moffitt (Appellant)
Regina (Crown)

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA at 1; O'Keefe J at 31; Buddin J at 32

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/31/0285

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Norrish DCJ

COUNSEL : D N Stewart (Appellant)
G I O Rowling (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Ross Hill & Associates (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sexual offences - appeal against conviction - inconsistent verdicts - whether convictions were unsafe and unreasonable - ND

LEGISLATION CITED: N/A

CASES CITED:
R v MacKenzie (1996) 190 CLR 348
R v Markuleski (2000-2001) 52 NSWLR 82

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed.

60545/01

STEIN JA
O’KEEFE J
BUDDIN J
Wednesday, 20 March 2002

Drew Anthony MOFFITT v REGINA

Judgment

1 STEIN JA: This is an appeal against conviction by the appellant, Drew Anthony Moffitt. On 8 February 2001 the appellant was found guilty of three counts on the indictment but not guilty of one count. The appeal is on the basis that the verdicts were inconsistent and the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory.

2 The first count in the indictment alleged that the appellant, on or about 14 June 2000, detained the complainant with intent to hold her for sexual gratification.

3 The second count alleged that on 14 June 2000 the appellant had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent. This count was particularised as the appellant penetrating the vagina of the complainant with a hard object.

4 The third count was to the same effect as count two but particularised as the appellant penetrating the anus of the complainant with a hard object.

5 The fourth count alleged that on the same date the appellant did unlawfully cause the complainant to take a stupefying drug, namely temazepam, with the intent to enable him to commit a sexual assault on her.

6 The jury found the appellant guilty of counts 1, 2 and 4 but not guilty on the third count.

7 On behalf of the appellant, Mr D Stewart of counsel submits that the verdicts of the jury are inconsistent. He submits that there was no rational reason why the jury, having not been satisfied of the guilt of the appellant in relation to count 3, could be satisfied as to his guilt in relation to count two. The verdicts, according to the submission, defied the test of logic and reasonableness outlined in R v MacKenzie (1996) 190 CLR 348. The verdicts cannot stand together. Counsel further submits that the verdict of the jury on count 3 means that counts 1 and 4 are also verdicts inconsistent with it.

The facts

8 The following is an edited version of the facts summarised by the Crown. As I understand it, counsel for the appellant, who also appeared at the trial, does not dispute its general accuracy. Lengthy as it…

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 Drew Anthony Moffitt v Regina

Details

AGLC: Drew Anthony Moffitt v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 73
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 73
Decision Date: 20 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Drew Anthony Moffitt v Regina involved the appellant, Moffitt, appealing his convictions for multiple sexual offences against a minor. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Moffitt had been convicted on several counts, including aggravated sexual assault and incest, following a trial where the jury returned inconsistent verdicts. The appellant contested the safety and reasonableness of his convictions, arguing that the jury had failed to properly consider the evidence and had reached conflicting conclusions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Moffitt's convictions were unsafe and unreasonable, given the inconsistency in the jury's verdicts. The court needed to determine whether there was a miscarriage of justice and whether the jury's inability to reach a unanimous decision on certain counts rendered the convictions unreliable. This involved an examination of the evidence presented, the jury's reasoning, and the principles governing jury verdicts in criminal trials.

The High Court held that despite the inconsistent verdicts, the convictions were safe and reasonable. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions on the counts where the jury had reached a unanimous decision. The inconsistency in the verdicts did not necessarily indicate a failure of the jury to properly consider the evidence, as each count was assessed independently. The court concluded that the convictions were not unsafe or unreasonable, as the evidence supported the findings on the counts where the jury had reached a unanimous decision. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The convictions and sentences previously imposed on Moffitt were upheld.

Orders