CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – Retrial – Trial by judge alone – sexual intercourse without consent – related charge – administer a declared substance without authorisation – verdicts of not guilty
This is a judge-alone retrial conducted pursuant to s 68B(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (Supreme Court Act). MZ (the accused) signed an election to be tried by a judge alone for the retrial on 24 March 2021. An election could be made for a trial by judge alone for the retrial due to amendments to s 68B that have since elapsed, notwithstanding that it related to an “excluded offences: s 68B(3A)(b).
The accused…
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 MZ (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v MZ (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 332
Case
[2021] ACTSC 332
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v MZ (No 3) involved a retrial of the accused, MZ, on charges of sexual intercourse without consent and administering a declared substance. The initial trial resulted in a guilty verdict for the charge of sexual intercourse without consent, but this was overturned on appeal. The appeal court found that the trial judge had erred in the directions given to the jury, leading to an order for a retrial. The retrial was conducted as a judge-alone trial, with the accused electing to be tried by a judge alone. The court considered various legal issues, including the standard of proof, the credibility of witnesses, and the admissibility of evidence. After evaluating all the evidence, the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the elements of both charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the accused not guilty of both the charge of sexual intercourse without consent and the related charge of administering a declared substance. The court emphasised the importance of the prosecution proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence. The decision underscores the significance of the criminal standard of proof and the presumption of innocence in criminal trials.