McClellan CJ at CL at [1] R A Hulme J at [2] Schmidt J at [332]
Decision:
Conviction appeal:
1. Leave to appeal in respect of grounds 1 to 14 refused.
2. Leave to appeal in respect of ground 15 granted.
3. The appellant's conviction for the offence of conspiracy (count 42) quashed and a verdict of acquittal entered.
4. The appeal otherwise dismissed.
Sentence appeal:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence allowed.
2. Aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 9 years with non-parole period of 5 years quashed.
3. In lieu, sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 8 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years 8 months to date from 29 April 2011. The offender will be eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 28 December 2015.
4. Pursuant to s 53A(2)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the sentences that would have been imposed for each of the offences against ss 38 and 61J Crimes Act 1900 had separate sentences been imposed are the same as indicated by the District Court.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - objections or points not raised in court below - Criminal Appeal Rules, Rule 4- leave to appeal granted only where miscarriage or an irregularity going to the root of the trial CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - misdirection by trial judge - multiple grounds of appeal - evidence not relevant to appellant where multiple accused - tendency and coincidence and context evidence - meaning of 'in company' element of aggravated sexual assault - physical presence during preparatory acts - knowledge of lack of consent - directions on criminal standard - jury note on 'beyond reasonable doubt' - insufficient summing-up - failure to direct on other charge the subject of a directed acquittal - leave to appeal refused CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - guilty verdict not reasonably open to the jury - insufficient evidence to be satisfied of guilty beyond reasonable doubt CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - approach to standard non-parole period after Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 - no error in application of standard non-parole period CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - no failure to take into account subjective features CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - unreasonable or plainly unjust - sentence not manifestly excessive
[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 FP v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
FP v R [2012] NSWCCA 182
Case
[2012] NSWCCA 182
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, FP, appealed against his conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual assault, among other charges. The trial involved multiple accused, and the appeal raised several grounds, including the alleged misdirection by the trial judge, the insufficiency of the evidence to support a guilty verdict, and the appropriateness of the sentence. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The appeal raised several complex legal issues, including whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on various points, such as the relevance of evidence to the appellant, the meaning of the phrase 'in company' in the context of aggravated sexual assault, and the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict. Additionally, the appeal contested whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict, and whether the sentence imposed was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to adequately address certain charges despite a directed acquittal on others.
The court examined each ground of appeal in detail. Regarding the alleged misdirections, the court found that while some directions could have been clearer, they did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. The court also reviewed the sentence, noting that it correctly applied the standard non-parole period and did not fail to consider relevant mitigating factors. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appeal did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice or an irregularity that went to the root of the trial.
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The court found no grounds for allowing the appeal, and thus, the appellant's conviction and sentence remained in place.