Jeffreys v The Queen - [2015] NSWCCA 132

Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Jeffreys v R
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWCCA 132
Hearing Date(s):	18 February 2015
Date of Orders:	4 June 2015
Decision Date:	4 June 2015
Before:	Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] R A Hulme J at [2] Davies J at [12]
Decision:	1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Dismiss the appeal. 3. Direct that the Appellant be returned to custody to serve the balance of his non-parole period of 9 months and 24 days commencing 4 June 2015 and expiring 27 March 2016 with an additional term expiring on 27 March 2018.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – sexual intercourse without consent – complainant was adult niece of appellant – complainant unable to remember sexual intercourse by reason of alcohol consumption – whether consent given – whether appellant reckless as to consent – whether appellant reasonably believed consent given – summing-up – whether fair and balanced – whether verdict unreasonable
Cases Cited:	Bin Radimin v R; Bin Zakhria v R [2013] NSWCCA 220; (2013) 235 A Crim R 244 Doyle v R; R v Doyle [2014] NSWCCA 4 R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 54 R v Meher [2004] NSWCCA 355 W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Michael Jeffreys (Appellant) Crown
Representation:	Counsel: B Walker SC & A Edwards (Appellant) K McKay (Crown) Solicitors: Bosscher Lawyers (Appellant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):	2012/43076
Decision under appeal:
Court or Tribunal:	District Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Date of Decision:	28 March 2014
Before:	Wells DCJ
File Number(s):	2012/43076

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with Davies J
R A HULME J: I agree with the orders proposed by Davies J for the reasons his Honour provides.
Upon my own assessment of the evidence I am satisfied that it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the applicant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
One particular aspect of the evidence to my mind rendered the prosecution case particularly persuasive. The complainant said in her evidence that she woke to a feeling of wetness between her legs which made her think that someone had had sex with her. She immediately went and confronted the applicant as he returned to his room from the shower and:
"I said something along the lines of 'What did you do to me, what have you done to me'."
Almost immediately and in the ensuing two to three hours there were complaints made to three witnesses. Her mother's evidence was that the complainant said that she woke to a realisation that something was wrong and she went and asked the applicant:
"Have you done something to me, have you, have you done something wrong to me?"
A woman who regarded the complainant as a niece said that the complaint to her included:
"I woke up and felt something was wrong. It felt like I'd just had sex and then I heard the shower and I went into [the applicant]…

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 Jeffreys v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jeffreys v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 132
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 132
Decision Date: 4 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Jeffreys v The Queen was heard, where the appellant faced charges of sexual intercourse without consent. The complainant, the appellant's adult niece, was unable to recall the events of the night in question due to heavy alcohol consumption. The central issue before the court was whether the complainant had given consent and, if not, whether the appellant had been reckless or reasonably believed that consent had been given. The court was also required to assess the fairness and balance of the summing-up by the trial judge, as well as the reasonableness of the jury's verdict.

The legal issues revolved around the interpretation of consent in the context of significant intoxication and the requisite mental state for recklessness. The court examined whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on these matters and whether the jury's verdict, which found the appellant guilty, was open based on the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the summing-up was unfair and that the verdict was unreasonable due to insufficient evidence of recklessness or absence of a reasonable belief in consent.

The High Court found that the trial judge's summing-up was fair and balanced, correctly directing the jury on the elements of the offence and the requisite mental states. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was open on the evidence, with sufficient grounds to infer that the appellant was reckless or had failed to reasonably believe that consent was given. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction.

The final orders of the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, maintaining the conviction of the appellant for sexual intercourse without consent. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders