Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Particular grounds of appeal – Inconsistent verdicts – Appellant convicted of rape but acquitted of indecent assault – Separate incidents – Stronger evidence on rape charge.

MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; DJK v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 17, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3478]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Particular grounds of appeal – Fresh evidence – Materiality and cogency – Evidence directed to credit – Evidence of prior inconsistent statement by complainant as to rape – Evidence lacking credibility – Likelihood that the appellant and his trial counsel were aware of the evidence at or before trial.

R v Abou-Chabake [2004] NSWCCA 356, 149 A Crim R 417, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3502]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Rape of intoxicated 18-year-old woman by mother's partner in their home – Sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 months manifestly inadequate.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appeal CCA 3340/2017
Appellant: K Baumeler, A McKenzie
Respondent: L Mason SC

Appeal CCA 3343/2017

Appellant: L Mason
Respondent: K Baumeler, A McKenzie

Solicitors:

Appeal CCA 3340/2017
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Appeal CCA 3343/2017

Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASCCA 19
Number of paragraphs: 214

Serial No 19/2018
File Nos CCA 3340/2017
CCA 3343/2017

M A C v STATE OF TASMANIA
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v M A C

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
GEASON J (Dissenting in Part)
MARTIN AJ
15 November 2018

Orders of the Court

Appeal CCA 3340/2017

Appeal dismissed.

Appeal CCA 3343/2017

Appeal allowed.

Sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 months quashed.

Respondent sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment with effect from 20 September 2017.

Respondent not to be eligible for parole until he has served 2 years 6 months of that sentence.

Serial No 19/2018
File Nos CCA 3340/2017
CCA 3343/2017

M A C v STATE OF TASMANIA
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v M A C

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
15 November 2018

I agree with the orders proposed by Martin AJ, and with his Honour's reasons.

File Nos CCA 3340/2017
CCA 3343/2017

M A C v STATE OF TASMANIA
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v M A C

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

GEASON J
15 November 2018

There are…

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 MAC v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: M a C v Tasmania [2018] TASCCA 19
Case: [2018] TASCCA 19
Decision Date: 15 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, MAC, was convicted of rape by a jury in Tasmania. The prosecution had also charged MAC with indecent assault, but the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on that charge. The appeal concerned the alleged inconsistency between these verdicts.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the jury's verdicts of guilty for rape and not guilty for indecent assault were so inconsistent as to require a new trial. The court was required to consider the nature of the offences and the evidence presented at trial in relation to each charge.

The court reasoned that the jury was entitled to find that the evidence supporting the rape charge was stronger than the evidence supporting the indecent assault charge, even though the charges related to separate incidents. The jury's function is to assess the evidence presented for each charge independently. In this instance, the court found no inherent inconsistency that would vitiate the jury's verdict on the rape charge, particularly as the evidence for each offence was distinct and the jury had been properly directed.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders