Ramsey v The The King - [2022] NSWCCA 197

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ramsey v R [2022] NSWCCA 197
Hearing dates: 29 July 2022
Date of orders: 12 September 2022
Decision date: 12 September 2022
Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL
Wilson J
Fagan J
Decision:
(1)   Grant leave to appeal against conviction.
(2)   Dismiss the appeal against conviction.
(3)   Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against conviction — miscarriage of justice – unreasonable verdicts – new evidence – no error or miscarriage of justice shown – verdict not unreasonable – appeal against sentence – special circumstances – whether error in consideration of appellant’s subjective circumstances – manifest excess – no error shown – sentence not excessive

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392; [1986] HCA 26
Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659; [1979] HCA 49
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259; [1989] HCA 35
R vAbou-Chabake [2004] NSWCCA 356; (2004) 149 A Crim R 417
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510; [1974] HCA 35

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mark Ramsey (applicant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented (applicant)
C Curtis (respondent)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (applicant)
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/4189
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2019] NSWDC 755

Date of Decision:

13 December 2019

Before:

Priestley SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/4189

Headnote

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Between 28 August 2019 and 6 September 2019 Mark Ramsey (‘the appellant’) stood trial before Priestley SC DCJ and a jury of 12 in the District Court at Newcastle on an indictment containing four counts of indecent assault and one count of sexual intercourse without consent. On 6 September 2019 the jury returned a verdict of guilty in relation to all counts.

All five offences involved a single complainant, JM. The offending occurred while JM, who was aged 16 at the time, resided with the appellant in early 2017. During this time, on a number of occasions JM awoke to find the appellant fondling his penis and on one occasion performing oral sex on him. The appellant’s case was that the acts were consensual.

On 13 December the appellant was sentenced by Priestley SC DCJ to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years.

The appellant, who was self-represented on appeal, sought leave to appeal both his conviction and sentence. On the appellant’s conviction appeal he raised ten grounds. Two grounds asserted a miscarriage of justice resulted from untendered evidence. Three grounds asserted a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the conduct…

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 Ramsey v The The King

Details

AGLC: Ramsey v The The King [2022] NSWCCA 197
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 197
Decision Date: 12 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Ramsey v The King arose from a conviction for a crime and subsequent sentence imposed on the appellant, Ramsey. The appellant contested both the conviction and the sentence, claiming a miscarriage of justice and an unreasonable verdict. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the legal issues centred on whether the trial court erred in its decision-making process and whether the sentence was excessive or manifestly unjust. The appeal against conviction argued that the verdict was unreasonable, while the appeal against sentence questioned whether the court had correctly considered the appellant’s subjective circumstances.

The court of appeal examined the evidence presented at trial and determined that no error or miscarriage of justice had occurred. It concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable given the evidence. Regarding the sentence, the court found that there was no error in the trial court’s consideration of the appellant’s circumstances, and the sentence was not a manifest excess of judicial discretion. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, as the court found no grounds for overturning the conviction or the sentence.

As a result of the court's decision, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant were upheld. The appeal was dismissed, and no new trial or resentencing was ordered. The appellant was required to continue serving the sentence as determined by the trial court.

Orders