R v Holland - [2002] NSWCCA 469

CITATION: R v Holland [2002] NSWCCA 469 revised - 01/09/2006

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60326/02

HEARING DATE(S): 5 November 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 November 2002

PARTIES :

Peter James Holland - Appellant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 55; Mathews AJ at 56

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 02/11/0084

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Shadbolt DCJ

COUNSEL : P Power - Crown
AW Street SC/Ms Soars - Appellant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
Van Houten - Appellant

CATCHWORDS: aggravated sexual intercourse without consent - attempted sexual intercourse without consent - assault with acts of indecency - verdicts of guilty on two counts, not guilty on three counts - alleged inconsistency of verdicts - directions to jury - effect of doubt concerning credibility or reliability in relation to one count, or more than one count, in relation to other counts - jury question concerning withdrawal of consent - verdicts - evidence of tape recorded telephone conversations between complainant and appellant

LEGISLATION CITED: Listening Devices Act 1984
Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Appeal Rules - Rule 4

CASES CITED:
Markuleski v R [2001] NSW CCA 290; 125 A Crim R 186
R v Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12

DECISION: Appeal against convictions dismissed.

60326/02

SIMPSON J
CARRUTHERS AJ
MATHEWS AJ
27 November 2002

REGINA v Peter James HOLLAND

Judgment

1 SIMPSON J: On 13 May 2002 the appellant was charged in the District Court on an indictment containing five counts. The first was a charge of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent; the second and third were of attempted sexual intercourse without consent; and the fourth and fifth of assault with acts of indecency. All offences were said to have been committed as part of a single, continuing course of conduct during the evening of 19 July 2001. The jury found the appellant guilty on the first and second counts, and not guilty on all others.

2 On the first count the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years with a non-parole period of eighteen months; on the second count he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years with a non-parole period of one year to be served concurrently with the first sentence. He now appeals against the convictions. He has not sought leave to appeal against the sentences.

the Crown case

3 The Crown case, as given principally through the complainant’s evidence, was that the appellant, who was then a member of the NSW Police Service, was engaged as a tutor at the Goulburn Police Academy. The complainant, who was then twenty-one years of age, was a student at the Academy. One of her classes was taught by the appellant. Until 19 July 2001 she had no social relationship with him. On the evening of that day the complainant had dinner with friends at a licensed establishment called Tully Park Tavern in Goulburn, and then returned to the Academy. She went to a liquor…

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 Holland

Details

AGLC: R v Holland [2002] NSWCCA 469
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 469
Decision Date: 27 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Holland involved the defendant, who was charged with multiple offences including aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, attempted sexual intercourse without consent, and assault with acts of indecency. The jury found the defendant guilty on two counts, but not guilty on three others. The issue before the court was whether the jury's verdicts were legally consistent, given the defendant's argument that the verdicts were inconsistent due to the jury's doubt concerning the credibility or reliability of the complainant's evidence in relation to one or more counts.

The court considered the principles governing jury directions and the consistency of verdicts. It examined whether the jury could have reasonably entertained a doubt about the complainant's credibility or reliability in relation to one count while convicting the defendant on another count. The court held that if there was doubt about the credibility or reliability of the complainant's evidence in relation to one count, this did not necessarily mean the jury could not also convict on another count where such doubt was not present. The court further examined the specific jury question concerning the withdrawal of consent and how it related to the different counts.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the jury's verdicts were legally consistent and did not display an alleged inconsistency. The evidence, including the tape-recorded telephone conversations between the complainant and the defendant, supported the jury's ability to find the defendant guilty on two counts while acquitting on three others. The court found no error in the trial judge's directions to the jury. The court upheld the verdicts of guilty on two counts and not guilty on three counts.

Orders