Legal Research
Cases
PM v The King

PM v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 139 12 September 2025

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

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: PM v R [2025] NSWCCA 139
Hearing dates: 21 July 2025
Date of orders: 12 September 2025
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Before: McHugh JA
Hamill J
Yehia J
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal under grounds 1 and 2.
(2) Refuse leave to appeal under ground 3.
(3) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL APPEAL – mixed verdicts – applicant alleged to have sexually assaulted his step-daughter on numerous occasions over a number of years at different locations – where jury returned guilty verdicts on the first three counts, not guilty on four later counts and unable to agree on four other counts – whether verdicts factually inconsistent – test of logic and reasonableness – whether verdicts unreasonable or unable to be supported – relevance of jury being unable to agree – fact specific inquiry – where potent evidence in the form of complaint concerning general allegation of sexual misconduct – where such evidence did not relate to a specific count – whether open to the jury to reach guilty verdicts on some counts but not others – evidence of good character and denials – conflict in evidence of opportunity – whether jury ought to have entertained a doubt – advantages of jury in circumstances of the case manifest and substantial
CRIMINAL LAW – directions to jury – “Markuleski” direction – where direction focused on reliability rather than truthfulness – where jury not directed that it was difficult to see how different verdicts could be returned on different counts – where no objection taken to direction at trial – where issues clear – while “full” direction preferable counsel satisfied direction sufficient – leave to appeal refused but absence of direction taken into account in considering ground asserting inconsistent verdicts

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), Pt 5
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165B
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.15

Cases Cited:
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Dabboul v R (2019) 100 NSWLR 682; [2019] NSWCCA 191
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Jovanovic (1997) 42 NSWLR 520
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v TK (2009) 74 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCCA 151
Saunders v R [2022] NSWCCA 273
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
The King v ZT [2025] HCA 9; (2025) 99 ALJR 676

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Principal…

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 PM v The King

Details

AGLC: PM v The King [2025] NSWCCA 139
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 139
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of PM v The King, the appellant was accused of multiple instances of sexual assault against his step-daughter over several years and at various locations. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty on the initial three counts, acquitted him on the subsequent four counts, and were unable to agree on the remaining four counts. The appeal centred on whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent in fact, and if they were unreasonable or unsupported. The court examined the logic and reasonableness of the verdicts, taking into account the inability of the jury to reach a unanimous decision.

The court examined the nature of the evidence presented, including the credibility of the step-daughter's complaint regarding general allegations of sexual misconduct. The court determined that the evidence did not pertain to specific counts, and it was within the jury's purview to convict on some counts while acquitting on others. The court also considered the testimony of character witnesses and the denials made by the appellant. The court concluded that the advantages of the jury in this case were significant and substantial.

The court found that the jury's verdicts were not factually inconsistent and were supported by the evidence presented. The court also noted that while a "full" direction to the jury would have been preferable, counsel was satisfied that the direction given was sufficient. The appeal was dismissed, but the absence of a specific direction was taken into account when considering the ground asserting inconsistent verdicts. The decision of the lower court was upheld.

Orders