SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title:
GW v The Queen
Citation:
[2015] ACTCA 15
Hearing Date:
5 November 2014
DecisionDate:
24 April 2015
Before:
Murrell CJ, Refshauge and Ross JJ
Decision:
The appeal is allowed. The verdict on Count 3 set aside. A new trial is ordered on Count 3.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – appeal against conviction – whether verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by evidence – inconsistent verdicts – unsworn evidence – direction to jury – warning to jury
[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 GW v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
GW v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 15
Case
[2015] ACTCA 15
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
GW appealed against a conviction in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal concerned the reasonableness and evidentiary support for the jury's verdicts, the issue of inconsistent verdicts, and the directions and warnings given to the jury regarding unsworn evidence.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the verdicts returned by the jury were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, and whether the verdicts were demonstrably inconsistent. Further, the court considered whether the directions and warnings provided to the jury concerning the reception and consideration of unsworn evidence were adequate and appropriate.
The Court of Appeal found that the verdicts on certain counts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. It determined that the jury's findings on Count 3 were inconsistent with the evidence presented, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the verdict on Count 3 was set aside, and a new trial was ordered specifically for that count.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is allowed. The verdict on Count 3 set aside. A new trial is ordered on Count 3.