Jones v The Queen - [2010] NSWCCA 117

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
Jones v R [2010] NSWCCA 117

FILE NUMBER(S):
2008/6200

HEARING DATE(S):
17 May 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 June 2010

PARTIES:
Stephen Reginald Jones (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan CJatCL Simpson J RA Hulme J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
2008/6200

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Neilson DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
28 August 2009

COUNSEL:
Mr R Button SC (Applicant)
Ms M Cinque (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Commission
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW
appeal against conviction
sexual assault and larceny
verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported
no question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
Dodds v R [2009] NSWCCA 78
R v Appellant W, Court of Criminal Appeal, 9 March 1990, unreported
R v Sloane [2001] NSWCCA 421; 126 A Crim R 188

TEXTS CITED:
Who is telling the truth? Psychology, common sense and the law, McClellan CJ at CL, (2006) 80 ALJ 655

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Convictions quashed. Verdicts of acquittal entered.

PUBLICATION RESTRICTION:
Non-publication in respect of identification of complainant, WA (s 578A Crimes Act 1900) and the witness AF (s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2008/6200
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
R A HULME J
4 June 2010

Stephen Reginald JONES v Regina

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with R A Hulme J.
SIMPSON J: I agree with R A Hulme J.
R A HULME J: This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction pursuant to s 5(1)(b) Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The applicant was arraigned before his Honour Judge Neilson and a jury in the District Court at Campbelltown upon an indictment alleging three offences.

The first count alleged that between 17 and 20 February 2007 at Merrylands he had sexual intercourse with WA without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting. The second count alleged that on 19 February 2007 he stole $100 from WA. The third count alleged that on 19 February 2007 he attempted to have sexual intercourse with WA without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting.

On 6 May 2009 the jury returned verdicts of guilty in respect of the first two counts and not guilty in respect of the third count. The applicant was subsequently sentenced to terms of imprisonment. He seeks leave to appeal against the convictions on a single ground, namely that the verdicts should be set aside on the ground that they are unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence. There is no application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Overview of the prosecution and defence cases

The prosecution case was that the applicant and WA met on the morning of Sunday 18 February 2007 at a liquor store in Merrylands. WA accepted an invitation from the applicant to return to his room in a boarding house for the purpose of having…

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 Jones v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jones v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 117
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 117
Decision Date: 4 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jones versus The Queen, the appellant stood convicted for sexual assault and larceny, crimes committed against a woman in her own home. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, the final appellate court in the country, which granted special leave to appeal against the decision of the intermediate appellate court, the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant's argument was that the verdicts of the trial court and the appellate court were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence presented, but no question of principle was raised.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were unreasonable in the circumstances, and whether there was any error in the process which led to the convictions. The court examined the evidence presented at trial and the reasoning of both the trial and appellate courts in reaching their decisions. The appellant argued that the trial court had erred in failing to consider all the evidence and in not properly weighing the evidence against the appellant.

The court held that the verdicts were not unreasonable and could be supported by the evidence. The court found that the trial court had properly considered the evidence and had not erred in any way that would lead to an unsafe and unsatisfactory result. The court also found that there was no question of principle that required the attention of the court. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders