Legal Research
Cases
R v Bonat

R v Bonat

Case [2004] NSWCCA 240 19 July 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Bonat [2004] NSWCCA 240

HEARING DATE(S): 5 July 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 July 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Sperling J at 2; Adams J at 120

DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed; (2) Convictions under counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 set aside; (3) Direct the entry of verdicts of acquittal in lieu thereof.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal against conviction - whether inconsistent verdicts - whether verdicts of guilty unreasonable - whether to enter verdicts of acquittal or order a new trial

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970

CASES CITED: Crisologo (1997) 99 ACrimR 178
Hayes (1973) 47 ALJR 603
Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439
Lebler [2003] NSWCCA 362
Lee [2004] NSWCCA 113
M (1994) 181 CLR 487
MacKenzie (1996) 190 CLR 348
Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82
MFA (2002) 193 ALJR 184
Nek [2001] NSWCCA 392
Parbury [2003] NSWCCA 120
Plomp (1963) 110 CLR 234
Raspor (1958) 99 CLR 346
Robinson (2000) 111 ACrimR 388
SBD [2003] NSWCCA 235

PARTIES :
Regina
Stephen Bonat

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60082/04

COUNSEL: Mr B Knox SC for the Crown
Mr P Hamill for the Appellant

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission for the Appellant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/71/0018

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Norrish DCJ

- 5 -

60082/04

Sheller JA
Sperling J
Adams J

Monday, 19 July 2004

Regina v Stephen Bonat

Judgment

1 Sheller JA: I agree with Sperling J.

2 Sperling J: This is an appeal against conviction.

The trial

3 On 7 March 2003, following a trial in the District Court before Norrish DCJ and a jury, the appellant was convicted on six of ten charges of sexual offences against his step-daughter (the complainant). A table follows, providing details of the charges and the verdicts of the jury.

Count	Charge	Date of Offence	Verdict
1	Indecent assault on person under the age of 16 years (namely, 10 years)	1 June 1984 – 30 September 1984	Not guilty
2	Sexual intercourse with person under the age of 16 years (namely, 10 years) knowing that she was not consenting	1 August 1984 – 30 September 1984	Guilty
3	Act of indecency with person under the age of 16 years (namely, 10 years)	1 August 1984 – 31 October 1984	Not guilty
4	Indecent assault on person under the age of 16 years (namely 10 or 11 years)	1 September 1984 – 31 December 1984	Guilty
5	Indecent assault on person under the age of 16 years (namely, 10 or 11 years)	1 January 1986 – 31 December 1986	Not guilty
6	Sexual intercourse with person under the age of 16 years (namely, 12 years)	23 March 1986 – 31 May 1986	Guilty
7	Sexual intercourse with person under the age of 16 years (namely, 12 years) and being a person in authority	1 May 1986 – 30 September 1986	Not guilty
8	Sexual intercourse with person under the age of 16 years (namely 13 years) and…

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 Bonat

Details

AGLC: R v Bonat [2004] NSWCCA 240
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 240
Decision Date: 19 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against conviction by the respondent, Bonat, who was found guilty of two separate charges: possessing a prohibited weapon and possessing a dangerous drug. The original trial was conducted in the County Court of Victoria, and the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal. The appeal challenged the consistency of the verdicts and the reasonableness of the guilty verdicts, with the alternative being either entering verdicts of acquittal or ordering a new trial.

The legal issues at the heart of the appeal were whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable. The appeal contended that the verdicts were inconsistent because a person cannot simultaneously possess a dangerous drug and a prohibited weapon, as defined by the relevant statutes. Additionally, the appeal argued that the evidence did not support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for either charge, making the verdicts unreasonable.

The court examined the nature of the offences and the evidence presented during the trial. It determined that the verdicts were not inconsistent, as the charges related to different elements of the respondent's possession and could coexist. The court further found that the verdicts of guilty were supported by the evidence, as the jury was entitled to draw inferences from the facts presented. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The court did not enter verdicts of acquittal nor order a new trial, maintaining the original verdicts and convictions.

Orders