Medium Neutral Citation: Hayne v R [2022] NSWCCA 11
Hearing dates: 29 November 2021
Date of orders: 14 February 2022
Decision date: 14 February 2022
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]
Harrison J at [2]
Wilson J at [110]
Decision:
(1)    Grant leave to the appellant to appeal on grounds 1 and 3.
(2)    Allow the appeal on those grounds.
(3)    Quash the appellant’s convictions and order a new trial.
(4)    Grant leave to appeal on ground 2 but dismiss that ground.
(5)    Dismiss ground 4.
(6)    List the proceedings for directions in the District Court at 9.30am on 18 February 2022.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against conviction – sexual intercourse without consent – whether erroneous direction of trial judge as to the legal test in s 61HA(3)(c) of the Crimes Act resulted in a miscarriage of justice – whether admission of evidence in new trial proceedings under s 306I of the Criminal Procedure Act was unfairly prejudicial – adducing of evidence excluded at pre-trial under s 130A of the Criminal Procedure Act – admissibility of evidence relating to sexual experience under s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act – whether verdict of the jury was unreasonable

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 ss 61HA, 61I, 61J, 61Q
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 ss 5F, 6
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 ss 130A, 293, 306I, 306J
Evidence Act 1995 ss 41, 137, 142

Cases Cited:
Bazouni v R [2021] NSWCCA 256
Decision Restricted [2021] NSWCCA 201
GEH v R (2012) 228 A Crim R 32; [2012] NSWCCA 150
Kalbasi v Western Australia (2018) 264 CLR 62; [2018] HCA 7
Krakouer v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 202; [1998] HCA 43
Lazarus v R [2016] NSWCCA 52
Liberato v R (1985) 159 CLR 507; [1985] HCA 66
O’Sullivan v R (2012) 233 A Crim R 449; [2012] NSWCCA 45
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
Priday v R [2019] NSWCCA 272
R v Dirani (No 8) [2018] NSWSC 1000
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; [1979] HCA 9
WX v R (2020) 102 NSWLR 467; [2020] NSWCCA 142

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jarryd Hayne (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Game SC and C O’Neill (Appellant)
B Hatfield and J Sfinas (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Madison Marcus Law Firm (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/355835
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW at Sydney

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

22 March 2021

Before:

Syme DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/355835

Judgment

Bathurst CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by Harrison J and with his Honour’s reasons.
Harrison J: On 22 March 2021, Jarryd Hayne was found guilty by a jury of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900. The counts were statutory alternatives (pursuant to s 61Q(1)…

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 Hayne v R

Details

AGLC: Hayne v R [2022] NSWCCA 11
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 11
Decision Date: 14 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction was heard by the High Court of Australia, brought by the appellant, Hayne, against the respondent, the Crown. The case concerns allegations of sexual intercourse without consent, for which the appellant was convicted. The appellant challenges both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the court below. The appeal raises significant issues regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions and the admissibility of certain evidence.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of section 61HA(3)(c) of the Crimes Act, which pertains to the legal test for establishing sexual intercourse without consent. The appellant argued that the trial judge had incorrectly directed the jury regarding this legal test, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the appellant contested the admissibility of evidence presented in the new trial proceedings under section 306I of the Criminal Procedure Act, asserting that it was unfairly prejudicial. The court also had to consider the implications of evidence excluded at a pre-trial stage under section 130A of the same act, and whether this exclusion impacted the fairness of the trial.

The High Court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury and found that there was no error in the legal test provided, concluding that the jury was properly guided. The court further considered the prejudicial nature of the evidence and determined that its admission did not unfairly prejudice the appellant's case. Regarding the excluded evidence, the court found that its exclusion did not impact the fairness of the trial. The court held that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence, affirming the decision of the lower court. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding no errors in the trial process that would warrant a new trial or a different outcome.

Orders