Nguyen v R

The case of Nguyen v R involved the applicant, Nguyen, who was acquitted of the offence of sexual intercourse without consent in circumstances of aggravation but was convicted of the statutory alternative of attempt to commit that offence. The trial was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction, arguing that the verdicts were inconsistent and the result of an impermissible compromise.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts could be reconciled on a logical and reasonable basis and whether the jury had reached the verdicts by way of an impermissible compromise. The applicant submitted that the verdicts were inconsistent as some parts of the complainant's evidence referred to an attempt only, while other parts referred to penetration. The applicant argued that the verdicts could not be reconciled and were the result of an impermissible compromise.

The court held that the verdicts were able to be reconciled on a logical and reasonable basis. The court found that the jury could have been satisfied that the applicant had attempted to commit the offence of sexual intercourse without consent in circumstances of aggravation but was not satisfied that the complainant had consented to intercourse. The court held that the verdicts were not the result of an impermissible compromise as the jury was not required to choose between mutually exclusive offences. The court found that the verdicts were consistent and able to be sustained on the evidence.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction.