R v Corbett - [2002] NSWCCA 137

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Corbett [2002] NSWCCA 137

FILE NUMBER(S):
60086/01

HEARING DATE(S): 8 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 19/04/2002

PARTIES:
Regina
v
William George Corbett

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA Sully J Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 00/21/0193

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Luland DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown - P G Ingram
Appellant - J S Stratton

SOLICITORS:
Crown - S E O'Connor
Appellant - D J Humphreys

CATCHWORDS:
JURY - VERDICTS - WHETHER INCONSISTENT - WHETHER UNSAFE AND UNSATISFACTORY

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

DECISION:
Appeal against conviction on count 1 upheld; Conviction and sentence on count 1 quashed; Verdict of acquital entered; Appeal against conviction on counts 5 and 6 dismissed. Appellant resentenced.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60086/01 DC 00/21/0193
HANDLEY JA
SULLY J
SMART AJ
19 April 2002
REGINAv WILLIAM GEORGE CORBETT

Judgment

HANDLEY JA: The appellant stood trial before Luland DCJ and a jury on 20 November 2000 on an indictment containing seven counts of sexual misconduct with an under age female which was amended on 23 November. The first count charged the appellant with indecent assault on the complainant, a female who was then under the age of 16, at Guildford between 31 July 1969 and 1 March 1970. The second to the sixth counts charged him with having carnal knowledge of the complainant between 31 July 1971 and 31 July 1973, between 31 July 1971 and 31 July 1973, between 1 January 1972 and 31 December 1972, between 1 January 1972 and 31 December 1972, and between 31 July 1972 and 31 December 1972, and the seventh with indecent assault between 31 July 1974 and 31 July 1976. The last six counts charged the offences as having occurred at Granville.
The complainant’s evidence was that the first offence occurred at her aunt’s home at Guildford, and the others at her parents’ home at Granville.
The jury convicted the appellant on count 1 (indecent assault) and counts 5 and 6 (carnal knowledge) and acquitted him on the rest. On 21 February 2001 the trial Judge sentenced the appellant to a fixed term of 18 months on the first count to commence that day and expire on 21 February 2002, and to concurrent terms of 4 years on counts 4 and 5 to commence on 21 February 2001 and expire on 28 February 2005 with a non parole period of 2 years.
The trial Judge granted a certificate under s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act that this was a fit case for an appeal on the ground that the verdicts appeared to be inconsistent. After this appeal was filed, the Judge admitted the appellant to bail pending the hearing of the appeal.
The earliest of the charges related to events alleged to have occurred over 30 years before the trial when the complainant was only 4. The last of the charges related to events alleged to have occurred more…

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 Corbett

Details

AGLC: R v Corbett [2002] NSWCCA 137
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 137
Decision Date: 19 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Corbett, the Crown appealed against the decision of a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had found the defendant guilty of murder but acquitted him of the charge of manslaughter. The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and whether they were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The defendant had shot and killed his father, and the primary issue was whether the defendant had acted in self-defence or if the killing was an act of murder or manslaughter. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder but acquitted him of manslaughter. The Crown argued that the verdicts were inconsistent, and therefore, the conviction for murder was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court considered the nature of the verdicts and whether they were logically inconsistent. It was noted that the jury had the discretion to convict the defendant of either murder or manslaughter, and the fact that they chose to convict him of murder did not necessarily mean that they had acquitted him of manslaughter. The court held that the verdicts were not inconsistent and that there was no legal impediment to the jury acquitting the defendant of manslaughter while convicting him of murder. The court further held that the verdicts were safe and satisfactory, as they were based on the evidence presented and the directions given by the trial judge.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was upheld. The court emphasised that the jury's verdicts were a reflection of their assessment of the evidence and their application of the law, and as long as they were not logically inconsistent or based on an error of law, they should be respected. The court also noted that the jury's verdicts did not necessarily reflect their views on the defendant's guilt or innocence but rather their assessment of the specific charges before them. The court held that the verdicts were not unsafe and unsatisfactory, and the conviction for murder was upheld.

Orders