SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | ED v The Queen |
Citation: | [2019] ACTCA 10 |
Hearing Date: | 9 May 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 17 May 2019 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Mossop and Bromwich JJ |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed. The verdicts on Counts 1, 4, 6 and 7 are confirmed. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – whether jury verdict is unreasonable – where offender is found guilty on some counts and not guilty on others – different verdicts based on same evidence not inherently unreasonable – Court to have regard to evidence before jury in assessing doubt – where there is a logical explanation for the acquittals |
Cases Cited: | BI v The Queen (No 2) [2018] ACTCA 11 Dickson v R [2017] NSWCCA 78; 94 NSWLR 476 |
Parties: | ED (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel K Archer (Appellant) P Dixon (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 38 of 2018 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Burns J Date of Decision: 30 November 2018 Case Title: R v ED Citation: [2018] ACTSC 366 |
THE COURT:
The Appeal
The appellant appealed against four jury verdicts of guilty on the ground that they were unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence because of their inconsistency with three verdicts of not guilty that were returned by the same jury in relation to the same incident.
Between 4 and 9 July 2016, the appellant, who was then 18 years old, stayed in Canberra with J (his aunt) and her children (his cousins), including N, who was then 13 years old.
At the trial, the prosecution alleged that, during one incident on a night when the appellant was staying with J and her family, he committed seven acts of sexual misconduct towards N, a person then under the age of 16 years. The alleged acts were four acts of sexual intercourse (two acts of digital intercourse and two acts of anal intercourse), one act of attempted sexual intercourse (attempted penile-vaginal intercourse), and two acts of indecency (tongue kissing and touching the buttocks/breasts).
The jury found that the appellant was guilty of Counts 1, 4, 6…
Continue reading ED v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- ED v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 10
- Case
- [2019] ACTCA 10
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether a jury's verdict, which included both guilty and not guilty findings based on substantially the same evidence, could be considered unreasonable. The Court was required to assess whether there was a logical explanation for such differing verdicts, considering the evidence presented to the jury and the possibility of reasonable doubt.
The Court reasoned that different verdicts on counts arising from the same evidence are not inherently unreasonable. The jury is entitled to consider each count separately and may acquit on one count while convicting on another if there is a logical explanation for the acquittal, such as a finding of reasonable doubt in relation to that specific count. The Court emphasised that it must have regard to the evidence before the jury when assessing whether a verdict is unreasonable.
The appeal was dismissed, and the verdicts of guilty on Counts 1, 4, 6, and 7 were confirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed. The verdicts on Counts 1, 4, 6 and 7 are confirmed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.