TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL from the SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:CA 18 of 2018 (21720262)
DELIVERED: 26 June 2020
HEARING DATES: 28 May 2019
JUDGMENT OF: Grant CJ, Blokland and Hiley JJ
CATCHWORDS:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict
Applicant found guilty of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent following trial by jury – Whether verdicts unreasonable and not supported by evidence at trial – Some inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony – Some discrepancies between the complainant’s account and other evidence – Despite those inconsistencies and discrepancies it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty – Whether trial judge erred in directing the jury about the use of the evidence of the complainant’s distress – Directions contained essential elements – Leave to appeal granted and appeal dismissed.
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Manifest excess
Applicant sentenced to total effective term of imprisonment of eight years with non-parole period of five years and eight months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – No error in fact-finding process undertaken by trial judge on sentencing – Sentence not unreasonable or plainly unjust – Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
[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 Lynch v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lynch v The Queen [2020] NTCCA 6
Case
[2020] NTCCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Lynch, sought leave to appeal against his conviction by a jury for two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Grant CJ, Blokland and Hiley JJ.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial, and whether the trial judge had erred in their directions to the jury regarding the use of evidence of the complainant's distress. The applicant argued that inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and discrepancies between her account and other evidence rendered the verdicts unsafe.
The court applied the principles established in *M v The Queen*, which requires an appellate court to make its own independent assessment of the entire evidence. This assessment involves considering whether, despite evidence upon which a jury might convict, it would be dangerous to allow the verdict to stand. The court must give full regard to the jury's primary role and their advantage in observing witnesses, while still critically examining the evidence for any inconsistencies or inadequacies that might lead to a reasonable doubt. In this instance, despite acknowledging some inconsistencies and discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, the court concluded that it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the applicant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
The applicant seeks leave to appeal the findings of guilt on the following grounds:(a)The verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence at trial.(b)The learned trial judge erred in declining to give the jury a specific direction as to the use of the evidence of the complainant’s distress.Ground 1: The verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence at trial. The principles governing this ground of appeal have been authoritatively stated in M v The Queen:[27] Where a court of criminal appeal sets aside a verdict on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, it frequently does so expressing its conclusion in terms of a verdict which is unsafe or unsatisfactory. Other terms may be used such as “unjust or unsafe” or “dangerous or unsafe”. In reaching such a conclusion, the court does not consider as a question of law whether there is evidence to support the verdict. Questions of law are separately dealt with by s 6(1). The question is one of fact which the court must decide by making its own independent assessment of the evidence and determining whether, notwithstanding that there is evidence upon which a jury might convict, “none the less it would be dangerous in all the circumstances to allow the verdict of guilty to stand”. …Where, notwithstanding that as a matter of law there is evidence to sustain a verdict, a court of criminal appeal is asked to conclude that the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory, the question which the court must ask itself is whether it thinks that upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. But in answering that question the court must not disregard or discount either the consideration that the jury is the body entrusted with the primary responsibility of determining guilt or innocence, or the consideration that the jury has had the benefit of having seen and heard the witnesses. On the contrary, the court must pay full regards to those considerations. The test in M v The Queen has been affirmed in subsequent decisions of the High Court.[28] An appeal of this kind requires an appellate court to make its own independent assessment of the whole of the evidence, and to determine whether, having regard to any advantages the jury had, it holds a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant. The task of conducting an independent assessment of the evidence requires an appellate court to weigh any competing evidence that might tend against the verdicts reached by the jury.[29] Evidence which has been assessed by the jury as credible and reliable is still to be examined critically to determine whether the jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt. The High Court has explained the process in the following terms:[30] The court examines the record to see whether, notwithstanding that assessment – either by reason of inconsistencies, discrepancies, or other inadequacy; or in the light of other evidence – the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt.