Legal Research
Cases
Fiddes v The King

Fiddes v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 141 26 June 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0071

COREY FIDDES	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KENNEDY and ORR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 June 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 141
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 341 (Judge Moglia)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Rape – Five charges involving one complainant in the course of one incident – Jury convicted applicant on three charges and acquitted him of two – Whether verdicts inconsistent – Guilty verdicts capable of being reconciled with not guilty verdicts – Appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Rape – Whether guilty verdicts unreasonable or not able to be supported having regard to the evidence – Whether evidence of complainant contained so many untruths, discrepancies and inadequacies that no jury acting rationally could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to applicant’s guilt – Open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal dismissed.

Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Pears v The King [2025] VSCA 35; MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; Booth v The King [2024] VSCA 318, applied.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr DA Dann KC with Mr M McGrath
Respondent:		Mr P Bourke KC with Mr G Buchhorn
Solicitors
Applicant:	Anthony Isaacs Criminal Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
KENNEDY JA
ORR JA:

On 31 December 2020, the applicant (who was then aged 20) and the complainant (who was also then aged 20) attended a New Year’s Eve party at a house in Elsternwick. At midnight, while on a dance floor on the ground floor of the house, the applicant and the complainant, who had not previously met, kissed. Shortly thereafter, they went upstairs and entered one of the bedrooms of the house. What occurred thereafter led to the applicant being charged with five counts of raping the complainant.[1]
[1]Contrary to s 38(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.
On 1 December 2023, following a 14 day trial, a jury found the applicant guilty of three of the rape charges (charges 2, 4 and 5) and acquitted him of the remaining charges (charges 1 and 3). On 19 March 2024, the judge sentenced the applicant to a total effective sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 4 months.[2]
[2]DPP v Brenner (a pseudonym) [2024] VCC 341 (‘Sentencing Reasons’).
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his convictions. His proposed grounds of appeal are:
1.The guilty verdicts of the jury were unsafe and unsatisfactory.
2.The guilty verdicts on charges 2, 4 and 5 are inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on charges 1 and 3.

Crown case and defence…

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 Fiddes v The King

Details

AGLC: Fiddes v The King [2025] VSCA 141
Case: [2025] VSCA 141
Decision Date: 26 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fiddes v The King, the appellant, Mr. Fiddes, sought to appeal his convictions and sentences for three counts of rape. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Mr. Fiddes was charged with five counts of rape involving a single complainant over the course of a single incident. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on three counts and acquitted him of two. The central issue before the court was whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the guilty verdicts could be reconciled with the not guilty verdicts. Additionally, the court had to determine if the guilty verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, particularly considering the complainant’s testimony which Mr. Fiddes argued contained numerous untruths, discrepancies, and inadequacies.

The court examined the principles established in Pell v The Queen and other relevant cases to assess the consistency and rationality of the jury's verdicts. It held that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on some counts but not on others, as long as the verdicts were not inconsistent. The court concluded that the jury's verdicts were rational and consistent with the evidence presented. The discrepancies and untruths in the complainant's testimony did not render the guilty verdicts unreasonable, as it was within the jury's province to evaluate the credibility of the evidence and determine the applicant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the counts they found him guilty of.

The appeal was dismissed by the court. The reasoning was that the jury's verdicts were rational, and the guilty verdicts were supported by the evidence. The court found no basis to interfere with the jury’s assessment of the evidence and the subsequent verdicts. Therefore, the convictions and sentences on the three counts of rape were upheld. The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and the maintenance of the original convictions and sentences as determined by the jury.

Orders