McMahon v The The Queen - [2022] NSWCCA 64

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: McMahon v R [2022] NSWCCA 64
Hearing dates: 28 February 2022
Date of orders: 22 April 2022
Decision date: 22 April 2022
Before: Harrison J at [1]
Wright J at [68]
Fagan J at [69]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against conviction.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against conviction – sexual intercourse without consent – whether verdict of the jury was unreasonable – whether verdicts of the jury were inconsistent – whether rational explanation for differing verdicts

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61I
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 306I

Cases Cited:
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56
Long (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 212
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
TK v R (2009) 74 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCCA 151

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Patrick McMahon (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
I Todd (Applicant)
B Hatfield (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Tully & Chiper Lawyers (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/157232
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW at Sydney

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

26 February 2021

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/157232

Judgment

HARRISON J: Patrick McMahon seeks leave to appeal against his conviction by a jury on 26 February 2021 on one count of penile-vaginal sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable because it was inconsistent with his acquittal on two related counts and because it cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. Mr McMahon was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months expiring on 16 December 2022. Mr McMahon does not challenge his sentence.
Mr McMahon stood trial before his Honour Judge King SC and a jury in February 2021 on an indictment alleging three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, all of which were alleged to have occurred on the same occasion. These counts alleged respectively non-consensual digital-vaginal penetration, cunnilingus and penile-vaginal intercourse. Mr McMahon was found not guilty on the first two counts but guilty on the third. In a previous trial before Judge Whitford SC in June 2020, the jury were unable to reach a verdict on all but one count of attempted penile-anal intercourse on which a verdict of not guilty was returned.

The Crown case

In January 2015, the complainant was seeking rental accommodation in Sydney. She used a website and found a property where Mr McMahon was the head lessee. The premises were shared at that time by Mr McMahon, his son and two other female housemates. One housemate was…

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 McMahon v The The Queen

Details

AGLC: McMahon v The The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 64
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 64
Decision Date: 22 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, McMahon, sought to appeal against his conviction for sexual intercourse without consent. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable, inconsistent, or whether there was a rational explanation for differing verdicts. McMahon argued that the jury had reached an unreasonable verdict due to the absence of a rational explanation for differing verdicts on similar charges against co-defendants.

The court considered the nature of the jury's role in criminal trials and the standards by which their verdicts could be reviewed. It noted that while the jury's verdicts could not be questioned on the grounds of inconsistency or lack of rational explanation, they could be reviewed if they were unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence. The court examined the evidence presented and the arguments made by both parties, focusing on whether the jury's decision was supported by the evidence and whether there was a rational basis for differing verdicts.

After a thorough examination, the court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and that there was a rational explanation for the differing verdicts. The court found that the jury had correctly applied the law and that their decision was supported by the evidence. The court rejected McMahon's appeal, affirming his conviction. The court held that the differing verdicts were not inconsistent and that there was a rational basis for the jury's decision.

The High Court dismissed McMahon's appeal, upholding his conviction for sexual intercourse without consent. The court found that the jury's verdict was reasonable and that there was a rational explanation for the differing verdicts. The decision highlighted the importance of the jury's role in criminal trials and the high standard required for overturning their verdicts.

Orders