Inia v The Queen - [2020] NSWCCA 205

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Inia v R [2020] NSWCCA 205
Hearing dates: 09 July 2020
Date of orders: 19 August 2020
Decision date: 19 August 2020
Before: Fullerton J at [1]; Wilson J at [87]; Ierace J at [89]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against conviction is granted.
2. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – one count of sexual intercourse without consent – whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and not be supported by the evidence – whether fresh evidence would have changed outcome of trial

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Hamilton v R [2020] NSWCCA 80
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Pell v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 394; [2020] HCA 12
R v Abou-Chabake (2004) 149 A Crim R 417; [2004] NSWCCA 356
R v Fantakis [2018] NSWSC 749
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Tuifua Inia (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Moutasallem (Applicant)
C Curtis (Crown)
Solicitors:
Pinnacle Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2018/95465
Publication restriction: Previously restricted.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

11 September 2019

Before:

Townsden DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/95465

Judgment

FULLERTON J: On 29 August 2019, the applicant was arraigned in the District Court before Townsden DCJ and a jury and entered a plea of not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent pursuant to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in the following terms:

On 25 March 2018, in Berala in the State of New South Wales, he had sexual intercourse with [the complainant] without her consent knowing that [the complainant] had not consented to the sexual intercourse.

On 11 September 2019, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
On 29 November 2019, Townsden DCJ sentenced the applicant to a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months, commencing on 1 October 2018, with an additional term of 1 year and 8 months. There is no appeal against sentence.
By a notice of appeal filed on 9 April 2020, the applicant appeals his conviction. At the time of filing the notice, the only ground of appeal advanced was that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. Both parties filed comprehensive written submissions addressing that ground of appeal.
On 28 June 2020, the Court received notice of the applicant’s intention to rely upon fresh evidence as an additional ground of appeal against conviction. Both parties then filed further comprehensive written submissions addressing that ground.
At the hearing of the appeal…

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 Inia v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Decision restricted [2020] NSWCCA 205
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 205
Decision Date: 19 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, the Crown, appealed against the conviction of the appellant, who was found guilty of one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant had been convicted by a jury of one count of sexual intercourse without consent in circumstances where he claimed that he had genuinely believed the complainant consented. The Crown appealed the conviction on the basis that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The appeal was based on the assertion that the jury had failed to consider crucial evidence and had been misled by inadmissible evidence.

The court was required to consider whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The court also had to determine whether the fresh evidence that had come to light since the trial would have changed the outcome of the trial. The Crown argued that the jury had failed to consider crucial evidence and had been misled by inadmissible evidence. The appellant argued that the jury had considered all the evidence and that the fresh evidence would not have changed the outcome of the trial.

The court held that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The court found that the jury had failed to consider crucial evidence and had been misled by inadmissible evidence. The court found that the fresh evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial and that the appellant’s conviction should be quashed. The court found that the appellant had a genuine belief that the complainant had consented and that this belief was reasonable. The court held that the appellant’s conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory and quashed the conviction. The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal for a re-trial.

The High Court quashed the appellant’s conviction and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for a re-trial. The court held that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The court found that the jury had failed to consider crucial evidence and had been misled by inadmissible evidence. The court found that the fresh evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial and that the appellant’s conviction should be quashed.

Orders