2. Leave to appeal is granted in respect of ground 3.
3. The appeal is dismissed.
4. Vary the sentence of imprisonment of 4 years and 4 months imprisonment imposed by Payne DCJ on 26 April 2023, commencing on 26 April 2023 and expiring on 25 August 2027, with a non-parole period of 2 years 9 months expiring on 25 January 2026, to an aggregate sentence of 4 years and 4 months imprisonment commencing on 6 December 2023 and expiring on 5 April 2028, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months, commencing on 6 December 2023 and expiring on 5 September 2026.
5. The applicant will be eligible for release on parole on 5 September 2026.
Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Sexual assault offences – whether identification direction was erroneous – whether guilty verdicts were unreasonable
[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 Marco v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Marco v The King [2023] NSWCCA 307
Case
[2023] NSWCCA 307
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved an appeal against the conviction of a defendant, Marco, for various sexual assault offences. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in giving a particular direction to the jury regarding the identification of the accused, and whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable.
The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge's direction to the jury on the identification of the accused was erroneous, and whether the jury's verdicts of guilty were unreasonable given the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the identification direction was flawed, and that the verdicts were not supported by the evidence. The central question was whether these alleged errors were significant enough to warrant a new trial.
The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the identification of the accused was not erroneous. It was determined that the judge's direction appropriately balanced the need to consider the circumstances of the identification with the requirement that the prosecution prove the accused's identity beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that the jury's verdicts of guilty were not unreasonable, as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion. The court concluded that the trial was conducted fairly, and that the verdicts were properly reached.
In light of the above findings, the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, confirming the appellant's guilt on the charges of sexual assault.