Legal Research
Cases
Inia v The Queen

Inia v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 49 16 March 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0063

HENGIHENGI INIA	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH, WEINBERG & McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	28 February 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 March 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 49
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Inia (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Maidment, 15 March 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Applicant convicted of two of four charges of rape – Two complainants – Verdict on one charge said to be unreasonable and/or not supported by the evidence – Verdict of guilty on same charge of rape said to be inconsistent with verdicts of not guilty on other rape charges involving same complainant – Open to jury to accept complainant’s evidence as credible – Reasonable explanation for acquittal on two rape charges and conviction on one – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D D Gurvich QC with Mr P J Smallwood	Doogue O’Brien George
For the Crown	Mr C B Boyce SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA
WEINBERG JA
MCLEISH JA:

The applicant stood trial, early last year, in the County Court at Melbourne on four charges of rape. Charges 1, 2 and 3 involved offences committed against a complainant, ‘SK’ and charge 4 involved an offence against her cousin, ‘SF’.

On 9 March 2016, the applicant was convicted on charges 3 and 4, and acquitted on charges 1 and 2.

He was subsequently sentenced to a total effective sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. He has not sought to challenge that sentence.

Proposed grounds of appeal

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against conviction (on charge 3 only) upon two grounds:

1.The verdict of the jury on charge 3 is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
2.The verdict of the jury on charge 3 is inconsistent with the verdicts of not guilty on charges 1 and 2.

Circumstances of the offending

On the night of Saturday 9 August 2014, SK and SF went to a nightclub in Sunshine called ‘West End’. They had been there on a number of occasions previously.

SK’s evidence

SK said that, while at the nightclub, she was approached by the applicant, who introduced himself as ‘Shaun’. She said that she was attracted to him from the outset. He said that he would buy her a drink later that evening, and later the two of them danced together. At one point, they were kissing on the dance floor.

Once the club closed, at about 3:00 am, the applicant, SK and SF, as well as the applicant’s friend, ‘SP’, all drove to SF’s home. On the way, they stopped at a service station (which, the evidence made clear, was equipped with a CCTV camera).

SK acknowledged that, virtually from the time she met the applicant, she intended to have sex with him.…

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: Inia v The Queen [2017] VSCA 49
Case: [2017] VSCA 49
Decision Date: 16 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Inia, was convicted of two of the four charges of rape against him, with two separate complainants. He appealed against his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, particularly regarding one charge of rape. Additionally, he argued that the guilty verdict on that charge was inconsistent with the acquittals on other charges of rape involving the same complainant. The appeal was lodged in the court of appeal, which was required to decide the legal issues presented.

The court needed to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, and whether there was an inconsistency in the verdicts. The court acknowledged that it was open to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence as credible, and that there could be a reasonable explanation for the acquittals on two charges and the conviction on one. The court also considered whether the verdict was so unreasonable that it could not have been reasonably open to the jury. Ultimately, the court found that the verdict was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence, and that there was a reasonable explanation for the inconsistent verdicts.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court of appeal found that the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court held that it was open to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence as credible and that there was a reasonable explanation for the inconsistent verdicts. The court therefore dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal to a higher court. This decision affirms the importance of allowing juries to assess the credibility of witnesses and make their own findings based on the evidence presented.

Orders