Regina v Grujevski - [2004] NSWCCA 117

CITATION: Regina v Grujevski [2004] NSWCCA 117

HEARING DATE(S): 10 February 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; O'Keefe J at 2; Bell J at 46

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Appeal - Multiple counts in indictment - Inconsistent verdicts - Principles to be applied - Logic, reasonableness and common sense.

CASES CITED: Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316
Regina v Wilkinson (1970) Crim LR 176

PARTIES :
Trajce Grujevski
Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 660345/03

COUNSEL: Mr C Everson - Appellant
Mr G Rowling - Crown

SOLICITORS: Ms J Saunders - Saunders & Co - Appellant
Ms J Bremner - Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Crown

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/41/0241

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Morgan DCJ

- 1 -

660345 of 2003

BEAZLEY JA
O’KEEFE J
BELL J

22 March 2004

REGINA V TRAJCE GRUJEVSKI

Judgment

BEAZLEY JA:

1 I agree with O’Keefe J.

O’KEEFE J:

Introduction

2 This is an appeal by Trajce Grujevski (the appellant) against his conviction by a jury at Queanbeyan on 15 April 2003 on a charge of having detained a female without her consent with intent to obtain an advantage namely sexual gratification and at the time of such detaining actual bodily harm was occasioned to the female. The appellant, who is 44 years of age, was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for three years from 29 May 2003 with a non parole period of 18 months to expire on 28 November 2004. The appellant has not sought leave to appeal against his sentence.

3 The appellant stood trial on an indictment that included three counts. They were:

(1) That on 27 December 2001 at Jerrabomberra on the State of New South Wales he detained a named female without her consent and with intent to obtain an advantage, namely sexual gratification and at the time of detaining, actual bodily harm was occasioned to such female.

(2) On the same date and at the same place he assaulted the same female and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency on the female.

(3) On the same date and in the same place he attempted to have sexual intercourse with the same female without her consent and knowing that she was not consenting.

4 The appellant pleaded not guilty to each of the charges and although he was convicted on the first count in the indictment the jury acquitted him on the seconds and third counts.

5 There is only one ground of appeal, namely:

“The verdict of guilty on the first count is unreasonable and cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence and to the verdicts of not guilty returned on the other two counts in the indictment.”

6 The principle contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Grujevski and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NSWCCA 117
Decision Date: 22 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Grujevski, the appellant faced multiple charges in a criminal trial, culminating in a conviction on some counts and acquittal on others. The issue of inconsistent verdicts was central to the appeal, raising questions about the principles governing such situations. The court was tasked with determining whether the inconsistency in the jury's verdicts undermined the integrity of the trial or if the verdicts could be considered logically consistent.

The primary legal issue was whether the jury's verdicts were logically inconsistent and, if so, whether the inconsistency was fatal to the appellant's conviction. The court examined the principles established in previous cases, focusing on logic, reasonableness, and common sense to assess the coherence of the verdicts. The court held that while the verdicts were prima facie inconsistent, a careful analysis could reveal a logical basis for them, considering the evidence and the legal standards applied.

The court concluded that the verdicts, though seemingly inconsistent, were not logically flawed when viewed through the lens of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The jury's decision-making process, while unconventional, was deemed reasonable and consistent when interpreted in the context of the trial's entirety. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the original conviction.

No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal, maintaining the conviction as decided by the lower court. The decision reaffirmed the importance of applying logic, reasonableness, and common sense in assessing the consistency of jury verdicts in criminal cases.

Orders