Legal Research
Cases
Geggo v The Queen

Geggo v The Queen

Case [2013] NSWCCA 7 1 February 2013

Conviction Appeal

Sexual Intercourse Without Consent

Miscarriage of Justice

Abuse of Process

Appeal

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Geggo v R [2013] NSWCCA 7
Hearing dates: 3 August 2012
Decision date: 01 February 2013
Before: Hoeben JA at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Button J at [240]
Decision:
Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeal - sexual intercourse without consent (three counts) - whether verdicts of guilty unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence - whether miscarriage of justice resulted from absence at trial of new (not fresh) evidence - whether miscarriage of justice as a result of comments made in Crown closing address - all grounds fail - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:
Rasic v R [2009] NSWCCA 202
Raumakita v R [2011] NSWCCA 126; 210 A Crim R 326
R v Manton [2005] NSWCCA 58
Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187; 66 NSWLR 186
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Abou-Chabake [2004] NSWCCA 356; 149 A Crim R 417
Ali v The Queen [2005] HCA 8; 79 ALJR 662
Ratten v The Queen [1974] HCA 35; 131 CLR 510
Mickelberg v The Queen [1989] HCA 35; 167 CLR 259
McCullough v The Queen [1982] Tas R 43; 6 A Crim R 274
R v Kennedy [2000] NSWCCA 487; 118 A Crim R34
R v Rugari [2001] NSWCCA 64; 122 A Crim R 1
R v Liristis [2004] NSWCCA 287; 146 A Crim R 547
R v Attallah [2005] NSWCCA 277
Livermore v R [2006] NSWCCA 334; 67 NSWLR 659
KNP v R [2006] NSWCCA 213; 67 NSWLR 22
Soames v R [2012] NSWCCA 188
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
TKWJ v The Queen [2002] HCA 46; 212 CLR 124
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adel Poulis Geggo (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr PM Strickland SC; Mr P Coady (Appellant)
Ms N Noman SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/46637
Publication restriction: ---
Decision under appeal

Citation:

---

Date of Decision:

2010-12-16 00:00:00

Before:

North DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/46637

Judgment

HOEBEN JA: I agree with Johnson J.

JOHNSON J: The Appellant, Adel Poulis Geggo, appeals against conviction on three counts of sexual intercourse without consent pursuant to s.61I Crimes Act 1900.

The charges were as follows:

(a) Count 1: That on 1 February 2009 at Maitland the Appellant did have sexual intercourse (oral sex) with the Complainant without her consent, knowing she was not consenting.

(b) Count 2: That on 1 February 2009 at Maitland the Appellant did have sexual intercourse (penile-vaginal sex) with the Complainant without her consent, knowing she was not consenting.

(c) Count 3: That on 7 February 2009 at Maitland the Appellant did have sexual intercourse (penile-vaginal sex) with the Complainant without her consent, knowing she was…

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 Geggo v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Geggo v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 7
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 7
Decision Date: 01 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Geggo, appealed against his conviction and sentence for three counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, that a miscarriage of justice resulted from the absence at trial of new evidence, and that a miscarriage of justice resulted from comments made in the Crown's closing address. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, whether a miscarriage of justice resulted from the absence at trial of new evidence, and whether a miscarriage of justice resulted from comments made in the Crown's closing address.

The court held that all grounds for appeal failed and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the verdicts of guilty were open on the evidence and that there was no miscarriage of justice resulting from the absence at trial of new evidence or comments made in the Crown's closing address. The court held that the trial judge had directed the jury properly in relation to the evidence and the law, and that there was no error in the proceedings that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The court also held that the comments made in the Crown's closing address did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The court found that the verdicts of guilty were supported by the evidence and that there was no miscarriage of justice in the proceedings. The court held that the trial was conducted fairly and that the appellant had not been deprived of a fair trial. The court found that the comments made in the Crown's closing address did not amount to a miscarriage of justice and that the trial judge had properly directed the jury in relation to the evidence and the law.

Orders