Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Enoka v R [2022] NSWCCA 272 Hearing dates: 04 November 2022 Date of orders: 15 December 2022 Decision date: 15 December 2022 Before: Garling J at [1]
Adamson J at [145]
Button J at [146]Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal;
(2) Dismiss the appeal.
Catchwords: CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Inconsistent verdicts — Applicant charged with one count of intentionally choking, one count of aggravated sexual assault and nine counts of sexual intercourse without consent — Jury found the applicant guilty of intentionally choking but not guilty of each other count — Where the events founding the 11 counts were intertwined temporally and contextually — Whether there was any logical basis to distinguish the verdicts — Distinguishing factors included the different elements of the offences, the different availability and quality of objective evidence and the different quality of complaint evidence — Appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 ss 37(1), 61I, 61J(1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 5(1)(b)
Cases Cited: Dadley v R [2021] NSWCCA 267
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; [1985] HCA 66
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Roos v R [2019] NSWCCA 67
Texts Cited: Not applicable
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tuii Enoka (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
L Brasch / J Leaver (Applicant)
S Traynor (Respondent)
Australian Lawyers and Advocates (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/00038417 Publication restriction: Publication of any matter which identifies or which is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant is prohibited: Crimes Act 1900 s 578A. Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Date of Decision:
- 24 November 2020
- Before:
- Townsden DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2019/00038417
Judgment
-
GARLING J: The applicant, Tuii Enoka, seeks leave, pursuant to s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, to appeal against his conviction for an offence of intentionally choking, contrary to s 37(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.
-
That offence was charged as count one on an 11-count indictment that also charged a count of aggravated sexual assault, contrary to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act, and nine counts of sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act.
-
Following a trial in the District Court, on 24 November 2020, a jury delivered its verdicts of guilty to count one, the charge of intentionally choking, and not guilty to each other count, the charges of aggravated sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent.
-
On 7 May 2021, Townsden DCJ, who had presided over the applicant’s trial, sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for four years and four months, including a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months. His Honour also imposed a 3-year Apprehended Domestic Violence Order and revoked a conditional release order which had previously been imposed upon the applicant for an offence of common…
Continue reading Enoka v The The King
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Enoka v The The King [2022] NSWCCA 272
- Case
- [2022] NSWCCA 272
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue for the court was whether there was any logical basis for the jury to distinguish between the applicant's guilt on the choking charge and his innocence on the other charges, given the intertwined nature of the events. The court examined whether the different elements of the offences, the varying availability and quality of objective evidence, and the differing quality of the complaint evidence could justify the jury's inconsistent verdicts.
In its reasoning, the court found that the jury had a rational basis to reach the inconsistent verdicts. The court concluded that the differing elements of each offence, the varying quality and availability of objective evidence, and the differing quality of the complaint evidence provided adequate grounds for the jury to acquit the applicant on the more serious charges while finding him guilty of the choking charge. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the jury's verdict.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.