R v Craig Paul Meyboom - [2011] ACTSC 13

R v CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM
[2011] ACTSC 13 (4 February 2011)

CRIMINAL LAW – sexual assault – sexual intercourse without consent – unlawful assault with intent to engage in sexual intercourse – theft – two complainants – two separate incidents – no direct connection between incidents – knowledge of lack of consent – circumstantial case – lack of identification evidence – verdict of not guilty entered for first complainant – lies of accused – lack of credibility – verdict of guilty entered for second complainant

CRIMINAL LAW – sexual intercourse without consent – unlawful assault with intent to engage in sexual intercourse – duplicitous charges – no verdict entered

EVIDENCE LAW – DNA analysis – most significant evidence – flaws in the process of DNA analysis – overloaded analysing machine – reliability of probability ratio – lessens probative value – 9 loci standard – partial match – supports a conclusion that the accused could not be excluded – does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the identification of the accused

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 53, 54
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 300, 304, 306, 308
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 130

Forbes v R [2009] ACTCA 10 (19 June 2009)
R v Hillier [2010] ACTSC 33 (16 April 2010)
R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v Ray (2003) 57 NSWLR 616
R v Mitchell (1997) 98 A Crim R 32

No. SCC 353A of 2007

Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 4 February 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 353A of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R

v

CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  4 February 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

A verdict of not guilty be entered in respect of count one, count two and count three.

A verdict of guilty be entered in respect of count five, count six and count seven.

Consequently, no verdict be entered in respect of count four.

By indictment presented on 7 February 2008, the accused, Craig Paul Meyboom was charged with seven offences.

FIRST COUNT

... THAT on the 11^th day of November 2005 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM did unlawfully assault [JT] with intent to engage in sexual intercourse with her.

SECOND COUNT

AND FURTHER THAT on the 11^th day of November 2005 at Canberra aforesaid CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM engaged in sexual intercourse with [JT], without her consent, and knowing that she did not consent or being reckless as to whether she had consented.

THIRD COUNT

AND FURTHER THAT on the 11^th day of November 2005 at Canberra aforesaid CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM dishonestly appropriated property, namely a Sony Ericsson Mobile phone and five hundred dollars in cash belonging to [JT] with the intention of permanently depriving her of that property.

FOURTH COUNT

AND FURTHER THAT on the 5^th day of April 2006 at Canberra aforesaid CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM did unlawfully…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Craig Paul Meyboom and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] ACTSC 13
Decision Date: 4 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Craig Paul Meyboom involved the defendant facing multiple charges related to sexual assault and theft. The incidents involved two separate complainants, with no direct connection between them. The court was tasked with determining whether the accused was guilty of sexual intercourse without consent, unlawful assault with intent to engage in sexual intercourse, and theft. Additionally, the court needed to assess the reliability of DNA evidence presented in the case, as well as the credibility of the accused's testimony.

The court found that the accused had lied to the court, which significantly undermined his credibility. For the first complainant, the court could not establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of direct evidence connecting the accused to the crime. Consequently, a verdict of not guilty was entered for the charges related to the first complainant. However, the court found the accused guilty of the charges related to the second complainant, based on the evidence presented and the lack of credible defence.

The court acknowledged that the DNA evidence was significant but had flaws. The reliability of the DNA analysis was compromised due to an overloaded analysing machine, which affected the accuracy of the probability ratio. Although the DNA evidence supported the conclusion that the accused could not be excluded as the source, it did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator. The 9 loci standard and the partial match provided some indication, but the court held that it was not enough to establish guilt in the absence of other corroborating evidence.

Ultimately, the court ordered that a verdict of not guilty be entered in respect of counts one, two, and three. For the charges related to the second complainant, the court found the accused guilty, and appropriate sentencing will follow. The decision highlights the importance of reliable evidence and the need for corroboration in criminal cases, particularly where the accused's credibility is in question.

Orders

Orders of the court

A verdict of not guilty be entered in respect of count one, count two and count three.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

FIRST COUNT	... THAT on the 11^th day of November 2005 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM did unlawfully assault [JT] with intent to engage in sexual intercourse with her.
SECOND COUNT	AND FURTHER THAT on the 11^th day of November 2005 at Canberra aforesaid CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM engaged in sexual intercourse with [JT], without her consent, and knowing that she did not consent or being reckless as to whether she had consented.
THIRD COUNT	AND FURTHER THAT on the 11^th day of November 2005 at Canberra aforesaid CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM dishonestly appropriated property, namely a Sony Ericsson Mobile phone and five hundred dollars in cash belonging to [JT] with the intention of permanently depriving her of that property.
FOURTH COUNT	AND FURTHER THAT on the 5^th day of April 2006 at Canberra aforesaid CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM did unlawfully…