Legal Research
Cases
Park v The King

Park v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 71 27 March 2023

Appeal

Unreasonable Verdict

Misdirection

Inconsistent Verdicts

Jury Confusion

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

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: Park v R [2023] NSWCCA 71
Hearing dates: 11 February 2023
Date of orders: 27 March 2023
Decision date: 27 March 2023
Before: Kirk JA at [1]
Walton J at [136]
Sweeney J at [192]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal is granted (to the extent necessary) and the appeal is upheld.
(2) The appellant’s conviction and sentence on Count 2 are quashed.
(3) There be a new trial on Count 2.
(4) The proceedings be listed in the arraignment list in the District Court on 21 April 2023.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict — Juror confusion — Alternative counts put to jury but absent from indictment — Suggestion that jury had confused two counts — Any confusion subsequently clarified — Approach of listing only some alternate charges on indictment deprecated
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict — Inconsistent verdicts — Applicant charged with three contemporaneous sexual offences — Convicted of more serious offence, acquitted of another and jury hung on third — Possible rational basis for explaining the verdicts — Whether proper to reconcile verdicts by reference to possible rational explanation in light of misdirections
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Wrong decision on a question of law — Inadequate Liberato direction — Failure to direct jury as to second limb of Liberato — Real chance misdirection affected jury’s verdict
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Wrong decision on a question of law — Misdirection as to use of evidence of delay in complaint — Application of Criminal Procedure Act, s 294 — Provision does not require the giving of a direction that delay in complaining is not relevant — Delay central to defence case
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — New trial — Unreasonable verdict — Discretion to order retrial where inconsistent verdicts

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61KC, 61KD(1)(a), 61I, 61J(1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 294
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules, r 4.15

Cases Cited:
ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Bussey v R [2020] NSWCCA 280
Castagna v R [2019] NSWCCA 114
Cullen v R [2022] NSWCCA 63
Daaboul v R [2019] NSWCCA 191
De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57; [2019] HCA 48
Ganiji v R [2019] NSWCCA 208
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Hargraves v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 257; [2011] HCA 44
Hawi v R (2014) 244 A Crim R 169; [2014] NSWCCA 83
Hewitt v R [2021] NSWCCA 227
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56
Jovanovski v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (2009) 198 A Crim R 279; [2009] NSWCCA 284
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; [1985] HCA 66
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994]…

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 Park v The King

Details

AGLC: Park v The King [2023] NSWCCA 71
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 71
Decision Date: 27 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Park, was convicted of various sexual offences and appealed against his conviction. The central issue was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the presence of inconsistent verdicts and the misdirections during the trial. The High Court examined whether the verdicts could be explained rationally despite the errors and whether these errors materially affected the outcome. The court further considered whether the trial judge's direction regarding the use of evidence of delay in reporting the offences was inadequate, impacting the jury's decision.

The court identified several critical legal issues. Firstly, it examined whether the inconsistency in the jury's verdicts rendered them unreasonable. The applicant was acquitted of one offence, convicted of another, and the jury was hung on a third. The court considered whether any rational explanation could justify these inconsistent outcomes. Secondly, the court scrutinised whether the trial judge's failure to adequately direct the jury on the second limb of the Liberato principle constituted a misdirection that might have affected the verdict. Additionally, the court evaluated whether the trial judge's direction concerning the use of evidence of delay in reporting the offences complied with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Act, s 294, and whether this misdirection warranted a new trial.

The court concluded that although there were misdirections, the errors did not necessarily lead to an unreasonable verdict. The jury's inconsistent verdicts could be explained rationally, and thus, the verdicts were not unreasonable. The misdirection regarding the use of delay evidence did not impact the outcome, as delay was a central aspect of the defence's case. The court found that the errors did not materially affect the jury's verdict, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The court did not deem it necessary to order a new trial given the rational explanations for the inconsistent verdicts.

Orders