R v RCC

[2002] NSWCCA 347

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:     Regina v RCC [2002]  NSWCCA 347

FILE NUMBER(S):
60838/00

HEARING DATE(S):    6 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:      25/09/2002

PARTIES:
Regina
v
RCC

JUDGMENT OF:        Wood CJ at CL Sully J Dowd J   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:       District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):     00/31/0259

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:   Kirkham DCJ

COUNSEL:
DML Woodburne - Crown
AP Cook - Appellant

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor - Crown
DJ Humphreys - Appellant

CATCHWORDS:
Inconsistent verdicts - absence of obvious reason for jury to convict on one and not other counts - danger of compromise and wrongful conviction.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Evidence Act 1906 (W.A.)

DECISION:
(1) The first ground of appeal upheld (2) Appeal allowed (3) Conviction of the appellant upon ground 6 of the indictment be quashed and entered in lieu judgment of acquittal.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60838/00

WOOD CJ
SULLY J
DOWD J

Wednesday 25 September 2002

Regina v RCC

Judgment

1. WOOD CJ at CL:  I have read in draft the judgments of Sully J and Dowd J in this matter.  For the reasons expressed by Mr Justice Sully, I am of the view that the appeal should be allowed, the conviction of the appellant on count 6 of the indictment quashed, and in lieu a judgment of acquittal entered. 

2. SULLY J:  I have read the draft judgment of Dowd J.  There is nothing that I wish to add to what his Honour has written respecting the essential facts, the essential principles of law, or the second ground of appeal.

1. I have reached, however, and for the reasons following, a conclusion different from that of his Honour upon the first ground of appeal.

1. The complainant's allegations which gave rise to counts 3, 4 and 5 of the indictment were clear, uncomplicated and vivid.  The nature of the allegations was such that, in my opinion, there was no room for a supposition that the complainant was honestly mistaken in her recollection of the incidents of which she gave her relevant evidence.  The allegations  were of an unbroken continuum of violence on a particular date, namely 12 June 1999.  The allegations were uncorroborated save for the evidence of bruising allegedly sustained by the complainant as a result of the incidents.  The allegations were denied, simply and comprehensively, by the appellant.

1. That the jury found the appellant not guilty on all of counts 3, 4 and 5 is, in my opinion, explicable upon either of two bases. The first possibility is that the jury viewed with positive disfavour the relevant evidence of the complainant.  The second possibility is that the jury did not so regard the complainant's own evidence, but could see no reason to exclude a reasonable possibility that the sworn denials of the appellant were true.  On either approach, the jury had a reasonable doubt overall as to the guilt of the appellant as charged in counts 3, 4 and 5.

1. Much the…