Regina v MRC - [2004] NSWCCA 241

CITATION: REGINA v. MRC [2004] NSWCCA 241

HEARING DATE(S): 17 March 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 July 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Shaw J at 42; Smart AJ at 43

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - Whether guilty verdict on one count unreasonable and/or inconsistent with the verdict on another count.

CASES CITED: Jones v. The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
MacKenzie v. The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
MFA v. The Queen (2002) 77 ALJR 139
R v. Kirkman (1987) SASR 591
R V. Markuleski (2001) 125 A Crim R 1
R v. Nek [2001] NSWCCA 392

PARTIES :
Regina - respondent
MRC - appellant

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60419/03

COUNSEL: Mr. Brian Knox SC for Crown/respondent
Mr. A.P. Cook for appellant

SOLICITORS: S.Kavanagh for Crown/respondent
P. Tierney for appellant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 02/41/0196

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Knight DCJ

CCA 60419/03
DC 02/41/0196

HODGSON JA
SHAW J
SMART AJ
Tuesday 20 July 2004

REGINA V. MRC

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: On 25 March 2003, before his Honour Judge Knight, the appellant pleaded not guilty to three charges:

2 On 3 April 2003, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on counts 1 and 3, and not guilty on count 2.

3 On 8 May 2003, the trial judge sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for a term of two years, but he suspended execution of this sentence conditionally on the appellant entering into a good behaviour bond for two years.

4 The appellant appeals from his conviction on count 1.

5 Before referring to the evidence for the Crown and the appellant, it is convenient to set out certain matters of background that are not the subject of substantial dispute.

6 The complainant was born on 8 March 1975. Her mother commenced to live with the appellant in 1980. Until January 1984, the complainant's mother had custody of the complainant and her brother T (born in 1976), with some access by their father.

7 The complainant's mother and the appellant had a child J born 8 August 1982, and another child W born 18 October 1984.

8 Between about August 1983 and about December 1983, the appellant and the complainant's mother built a house…

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 Regina v MRC

Details

AGLC: Regina v MRC [2004] NSWCCA 241
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 241
Decision Date: 20 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina, the appellant, appealed against their conviction on one count of the indictment, arguing that the guilty verdict was unreasonable and inconsistent with the verdict on another count. The case was heard and determined in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The appellant's challenge centred on the principle that a conviction on one count cannot be inconsistent with a not guilty verdict on another count if the two offences are part of the same transaction or series of transactions.

The central legal issue for the court to resolve was whether the verdict on the contested count was unreasonable and inconsistent with the verdict on another count, which had been found not guilty. The court was required to assess the evidence presented at trial and determine if the jury's decision was logical and supported by the evidence. The court also needed to consider if the verdict on the contested count was so unsatisfactory that it should be quashed.

The court examined the evidence and the jury's verdict in detail, finding that the jury had acted reasonably in convicting the appellant on one count while acquitting on another. The court held that the verdicts were not inconsistent as they related to different aspects of the same incident. The jury had adequately distinguished between the elements of the two offences, and the evidence supported the verdicts reached. The court concluded that the verdict on the contested count was not unreasonable or inconsistent with the verdict on the other count. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders