Legal Research
Cases
MA v The The Queen

MA v The The Queen

Case [2022] NSWCCA 61 25 March 2022

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: MA v R [2022] NSWCCA 61
Hearing dates: 14 February 2022
Date of orders: 25 March 2022
Decision date: 25 March 2022
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Bellew J at [71];
Dhanji J at [72]
Decision:
(1) Refuse extension of time to appeal.
(2) Dismiss application for leave to appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against conviction — whether guilty verdicts unreasonable by reason of inconsistency with not guilty verdicts

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61M(1), 61M(2), 66A, 66A(2), 66C(2), 344A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), Pt 29, Sch 2 Div 2, s 84(2), Div 3, s 88

Cases Cited:
BF v R [2019] NSWCCA 321
DS v R [2021] NSWCCA
Holloway v R [2017] NSWCCA 17
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
MG v R [2017] NSWCCA 14
Nyguyen v R [2017] NSWCCA 145
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v TK (2009) 74 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCCA 151
RD (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA
Vasilevski v R [2019] NSWCCA 277
Z (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 8

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: MA (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Moutasallum (Applicant)
C Curtis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Birchgrove Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/00393150036
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order on the identity of the complainant and any material that tends to identify her under s 578A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). This extends to the publication of the name of the complainant’s siblings and her school friend.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

N/A

Date of Decision:

12 November 2019

Before:

Woodburne SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/00393150

Judgment

In 2019 the applicant was arraigned in the District Court on an indictment charging him with 20 offences relating to the indecent and sexual assault of his granddaughter. After he pleaded not guilty to all charges, his trial proceeded before a jury which, in the course of the trial, returned directed verdicts of not guilty on Counts 10 and 15, as the complainant gave no evidence to support these counts. At the conclusion of the trial the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on the remaining counts from 1 to 12 and guilty on those remaining from 13 to 20. As the parties described it on appeal, the jury thus drew a “line in the sand” between Counts…

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 MA v The The Queen

Details

AGLC: MA v The The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 61
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 61
Decision Date: 25 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appellant who was convicted of several criminal offences including murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable by reason of inconsistency with not guilty verdicts. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The legal issue before the court was whether the guilty verdicts were unreasonable given the not guilty verdicts, and whether this inconsistency was sufficient to warrant a new trial. The court considered the principles of consistency in verdicts and the standard of proof required in criminal cases.

The High Court held that while inconsistencies in verdicts can be problematic, they do not necessarily render a verdict unreasonable. The court emphasised that the jury is best placed to assess the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. The court also noted that the inconsistencies did not necessarily undermine the overall reliability of the guilty verdicts. The court held that the appellant's convictions were safe and did not require a new trial. The court found that the jury had properly considered the evidence and made a rational decision based on the evidence presented.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellant's convictions. The court held that the inconsistencies in the verdicts did not render the guilty verdicts unreasonable, and that the standard of proof had been met in the case. The court emphasised that the jury's role in assessing the evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses is crucial in criminal trials, and that the court should not interfere with the jury's decision unless it is palpably unsafe. The High Court's decision reinforces the principle that the jury's verdict should be respected unless there is a clear error in the legal process or the evidence.

Orders