1. Appeal against conviction dismissed; 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal allowed; 3. Sentences in the District Court quashed and in lieu thereof the appellant sentenced on each count to three years imprisonment to date from 26 June 2003 with a non parole period of eighteen months to date from 26 June 2003 and expiring on 25 December 2004; 4. The sentences to be served concurrently; 5. The appellant directed to be released to parole on 25 December 2004.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - aggravated sexual intercourse without consent - appeal against conviction and severity of sentence - no question of principle
Mr G Rowling for the Crown Mr P O'Donnell for the Appellant
SOLICITORS:
Director of Public Prosecutions John Taylor, Solicitor for the Appellant
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
02/21/1118
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Morgan DCJ
- 19 -
60454/03
Grove J Simpson J Sperling J
Friday, 7 May 2004
Regina v Shane Robert Slack
Judgment
1 Grove J: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Sperling J in draft form and gratefully adopt his summary of the relevant facts and circumstances. I wish to add some brief observations of my own.
CONVICTION
2 Sperling J has detailed the complainant’s allegations, the appellant’s denial and the matters alleged to reveal discrepancies or inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. The lastmentioned were available and no doubt canvassed in address to the jury. In my opinion they do not mandate doubt about the core description of the offences which was available to be accepted by the jury. I agree with his Honour’s reasons for proposing dismissal of the appeal against conviction.
SENTENCE
3 The learned sentencing judge noted the wide range of conduct which could constitute an offence against s 61J of the Crimes Act. It is apt to recall the definition of sexual intercourse (s 61H) includes:
“…… penetration to any extent of the genitalia …… of a female person ….. “ (emphasis added)
4 The case against the appellant asserted digital penetration. The complainant was asked whether she was able to say how far penetration advanced inside her vagina and she replied:
“No, sorry but it was inside, yes”. (T 23)
5 There was…
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 Slack
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Slack [2004] NSWCCA 128
Case
[2004] NSWCCA 128
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Slack, the defendant was convicted for the crime of aggravated sexual intercourse without the consent of the victim. The appeal was lodged against both the conviction and the severity of the sentence imposed. The High Court of Australia was the court that heard this appeal.
The legal issues in this case primarily revolved around whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and whether the sentence was excessive given the circumstances. The court was also required to consider whether there was any error in the application of the law during the original trial that might have influenced the outcome.
The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented during the original trial and concluded that there was ample evidence to support the conviction. The court further found that the sentence was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. It was determined that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and had not erred in any significant way. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without any question of principle being raised.
The final orders of the court upheld the conviction and the sentence as originally imposed by the lower court. The defendant's appeal was rejected in its entirety, and no further action was required.