R v Barnett - [2000] NSWCCA 283

CITATION: R v Barnett [2000] NSWCCA 283

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60270/99

HEARING DATE(S): 1 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 August 2000

PARTIES :

Arthur James Barnett (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Foster AJA at 37 & 39; Dunford J at 1; Smart AJ at 38

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/1224

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Coleman DCJ

COUNSEL : PJD Hamill (Appellant)
WG Dawe QC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: TA Murphy (Appellant)
SE O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Appeal against conviction - carnal knowledge of a minor - inconsistent verdicts - verdicts unreasonable and not supportable by the evidence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 71

CASES CITED:
R v RAT [2000] NSWCCA 77
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
McKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348

DECISION: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentences quashed; verdicts of acquittal entered.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60270/99
FOSTER AJA
DUNFORD J
SMART AJ

Tuesday, 1 AUGUST 2000

R v Arthur James BARNETT
JUDGMENT
1 DUNFORD J: This is an appeal by the appellant against his conviction following trial in the District Court at Penrith before his Honour, Judge Coleman and a jury on two counts of carnal knowledge, for which he was sentenced to effective terms totalling a minimum term of four years with an additional term of two years. 2 The appellant in fact stood trial in relation to six counts which may be summarised as follows:
1. Carnal knowledge of the complainant between May 1961 and 31 July 1961 at Queanbeyan contrary to s 71 of the Crimes Act 1900 , as it then stood,
2. Indecent assault of the complainant, she then being under 16 years, at Queanbeyan between May 1961 and 31 July 1961 contrary to s 76,
3. Carnal knowledge of the complainant between January and December 1962 at Bookham, contrary to s 71,
4. Carnal knowledge of the complainant between January and December 1962 at Bowna, contrary to s 71,
5. Indecent assault of the complainant, she then being under 16 years, at Homebush between January and December 1963 contrary to s 76,
6. Rape of the complainant at Heckenberg between 21 and 23 August 1966, contrary to s 63.

3 The case against the appellant consisted of the evidence of the complainant and a statement from the complainant's mother, since deceased, which was read to the jury, along with the evidence of the police officer in charge of the case. 4 The appellant's case consisted of his evidence and that of his ex-wife, who was also the sister of the complainant. 5 The complainant alleged a history of sexual interference by the appellant at various locations over a number of years from about 1957 to 1964. She said that the first of these incidents occurred in the Victorian town of Bethanga when the appellant, who was then in a relationship with the woman who subsequently became his wife, now his ex-wife, visited the complainant's family. 6 Evidence of these events…

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 R v Barnett

Details

AGLC: R v Barnett [2000] NSWCCA 283
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 283
Decision Date: 1 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Barnett involved the conviction of the appellant on charges related to the carnal knowledge of a minor. The respondent argued that the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable, contending that they were not supportable by the evidence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the convictions were valid based on the evidence presented.

The court was required to decide whether the convictions were consistent with the evidence provided and whether they were reasonable. The key issue was whether the jury's verdicts were supported by the evidence, and whether any inconsistencies rendered the verdicts unreasonable. The court had to examine the evidence and determine if the jury's conclusions were properly based on it.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the evidence and the verdicts closely. The court found that the verdicts were inconsistent and could not be supported by the evidence presented at trial. The reasoning was that the inconsistencies in the verdicts undermined their reliability and reasonableness. The court held that the verdicts were unreasonable and not supportable by the evidence, leading to the conclusion that the convictions were not valid. Consequently, the convictions were quashed.

The court ordered that the convictions be quashed and that the appellant be released unless otherwise lawfully detained. The court also directed that the case be remitted to the lower court for further proceedings, if appropriate.

Orders