EE v R

The case of EE v R involved an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The applicant, who was convicted of assault and sexual intercourse without consent, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant contested the conviction on two counts, arguing that the trial judge erred in resolving conflicting evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable. Additionally, the applicant appealed against the sentence, contending that the sentencing judge erred in characterising the offence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge's resolution of conflicting evidence concerning the assault charge was erroneous, and whether the applicant could challenge the conviction under the third limb of section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The court considered whether the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable, specifically whether there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentencing judge had erred in finding that the sexual intercourse without consent was not spontaneous and unplanned, and whether this distinction impacted the characterisation of the offence.

In its reasoning, the court held that the trial judge's description of the complaint as "limited" and "containing no real detail" was not erroneous. The court concluded that there was no significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted, thus dismissing the appeal against conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the sentencing judge clearly did not accept on the balance of probabilities that the applicant was not aware of the possibility that the complainant might withdraw her consent. The court determined that there was no error in the characterisation of the offence, and the appeal against sentence was also dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge were upheld, and the applicant's challenges to both were unsuccessful.