KBR v Tasmania - [2025] TASCCA 10

[2025] TASCCA 10

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:	KBR v Tasmania [2025] TASCCA 10
PARTIES:	KBR
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	CCA 3004/2023
DELIVERED ON:	30 July 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	3 July 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Shanahan CJ, Estcourt J, Cuthbertson J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence – Leave to Appeal refused – Appellant sought leave to appeal on the basis that his witnesses' evidence contradicted the complainants' – Whether competing accounts must have raised a reasonable doubt – Credibility and reliability of oral testimony matters for the jury – No power to intervene unless, by reason of other matters, the jury must have been left with a reasonable doubt– Jury entitled to accept the evidence of all six complainants – Evidence of the appellant's guilt was strong – No possibility that an innocent person was convicted - Appeal against sentence on the grounds it was manifestly excessive dismissed.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3476]

Legislation:
Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas)

Cases: considered.

Aliano v Tasmania [2025] TASCCA 4; PAC v State of Tasmania [2024] TASCCA 12; AWK v Tasmania
[2024] TASCCA 5; Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12, 268 CLR; Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432;

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Appellant found guilty by jury – Convicted of eight counts of indecent assault, four counts of rape, one count of indecent act with or directed at a child and two counts of persistent sexual abuse of a child – Sentenced to 21 years' imprisonment and not eligible for parole until 13 years served – Appellant submitted age and health were not given sufficient weight – Relevant question whether sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust – Comparative sentencing data of limited use – Sentence was within sentencing judge's wide sentencing discretion – Conformable with like sentences – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]
Legislation:

Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas)

Cases:
DPP v Pearce (2016) 28 Tas R 1; House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499, applied.

R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: K Baumeler
Respondent: L Pennington, S Griffin

Solicitors:

Appellant: Liverpool Chambers
Respondent: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASCCA 10
Number of paragraphs:	86

Serial No 10/2025

File No CCA 3004/2023

KBR v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL SHANAHAN, CJ ESTCOURT J CUTHBERTSON J 30 July 2025
Orders of the Court:

1 Leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
2 Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 10/2025

File No CCA 3004/2023

KBR v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

SHANAHAN CJ
30 July 2025

1 At the hearing of…

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 KBR v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: KBR v Tasmania [2025] TASCCA 10
Case: [2025] TASCCA 10
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, KBR, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute concerned the appellant's assertion that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, primarily due to contradictions between his witnesses' testimony and that of the six complainants.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the existence of competing accounts of events, where the appellant's witnesses contradicted the complainants, necessarily raised a reasonable doubt sufficient to render the jury's verdict unreasonable. The court was also required to consider whether it possessed the power to intervene in the jury's findings in such circumstances.

The court reasoned that the assessment of the credibility and reliability of oral testimony is a matter exclusively for the jury. It held that it had no power to intervene unless, by reason of other matters not apparent from the mere existence of conflicting accounts, the jury must have been left with a reasonable doubt. The court found that the jury was entitled to accept the evidence of all six complainants, and that the evidence of the appellant's guilt was strong, leaving no possibility that an innocent person had been convicted. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was refused. The appeal against sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive was also dismissed.

Orders