Irmak v R; Dagdanasar v R

The appeals in Irmak and Dagdanasar were heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellants, both convicted of serious sexual offences, challenged both their convictions and the sentences imposed. The primary issues before the court were whether the convictions were properly founded and if the sentences were excessive. The first appellant, Irmak, was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent and inflicting actual bodily harm. The second appellant, Dagdanasar, faced similar charges. The court had to determine whether the Crown had provided sufficient evidence to prove actual bodily harm and whether the convictions were inconsistent. Additionally, the appeals questioned the sentences' correctness and whether they were manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether the evidence was sufficient to establish actual bodily harm. The Crown failed to provide medical evidence and did not specify the injury relevant to each charged count. The court found that the absence of medical evidence did not preclude a finding of actual bodily harm if the injury was attributable to the sexual act. The court also considered the Crown Prosecutor's closing address, which conflated intoxication and incapacity to give consent, leading to potential confusion in the jury's understanding. The court found that the convictions were consistent and that the evidence was sufficient to support them. Regarding the sentences, the court assessed the objective gravity of the offences and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive. The court noted that the comparison with other sentencing cases was to be used judiciously to establish any error in the sentencing process.

The High Court allowed the appeals against conviction in part, setting aside the convictions for actual bodily harm. The court held that the Crown had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the element of actual bodily harm. The convictions for sexual intercourse without consent were upheld. The court also found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and did not constitute an error. The court's decision clarified the standards for proving actual bodily harm and the use of expert pharmacological evidence in consent-related offences. The convictions for sexual intercourse without consent were upheld, but those for actual bodily harm were quashed, and the sentences were affirmed.