Meagher JA at [1]; Simpson J at [21]; Wilson J at [159]
Decision:
(1) Appeal against conviction dismissed;
(2) Leave to appeal against sentences granted;
(3) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
APPEAL - conviction - aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, s 61I Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) - whether trial judge failed properly to direct jury as to joint criminal enterprise - R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545; Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6; 295 ALR 624
APPEAL - conviction - whether trial judge failed properly to direct jury on circumstantial evidence - Shepherd v The Queen [1990 HCA 56; 170 CLR 573 - separate direction would have been unnecessary and confusing
APPEAL - directions - Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4 - Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5 and s 6(1) - no objection taken to directions at trial - leave to appeal refused
APPEAL - conviction - whether verdict unreasonable and not able to be supported having regard to the evidence - Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1) - Raumakita v R [2011] NSWCCA 126; 210 A Crim R 326 - appeal dismissed
APPEAL - sentencing - parity, whether justifiable sense of grievance when sentence considered in relation to co-offender’s sentence - age of co-offender - KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; 182 A Crim R 571 - appeal dismissed
[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 KA v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
KA v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 111
Case
[2015] NSWCCA 111
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, KA, was convicted of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent under section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and appealed against the conviction and sentence. The appeal centred on the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the principles of joint criminal enterprise and the handling of circumstantial evidence. The respondent, R, was the state, and the case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the concept of joint criminal enterprise as per R v Tangye and Huynh v The Queen. Furthermore, the court examined whether the trial judge's failure to separately direct the jury on circumstantial evidence, as discussed in Shepherd v The Queen, was an error that necessitated a new trial. The appeal also questioned whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsustainable when considering the evidence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal found that no objection had been raised to the trial judge's directions at the original trial, thus limiting the grounds for appeal. Under the Criminal Appeal Rules and the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), the appeal was considered on the basis of whether the verdict was unreasonable. The court concluded that the verdict was supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal on the grounds of unreasonableness. Additionally, the court considered the sentencing aspects, including the principle of parity in relation to the co-offender's sentence, and found no grounds for appeal.
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.