Regina v SBD - [2003] NSWCCA 235

CITATION: REGINA v SBD [2003] NSWCCA 235

HEARING DATE(S): 14 August 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 2; Adams J at 3

DECISION: Appeal allowed; convictions below quashed

CATCHWORDS: Appeal against conviction - whether verdicts inconsistent - whether verdicts unreasonable - significant contradictions between complaint and trial evidence - verdicts of guilt not open on evidence - convictions quashed

LEGISLATION CITED: s6(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: M v The Queen (1984) 181 CLR 487 at 494-495
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53, (2002) 193 ALR 184
R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290 [3] - [10], (2001) 125 A Crim R 1
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12

PARTIES :

Regina (Respondent)
SBD (Appellant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60145/03

COUNSEL: W Flynn (Appellant)
D M L Woodburne (Crown)

SOLICITORS: M Burke (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0331

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Blackmore DCJ

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60145/03

WOOD CJ AT CL
SIMPSON J
ADAMS J

FRIDAY 22 AUGUST 2003

REGINA v SBD

JUDGMENT

1 WOOD CJ AT CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Adams J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of his Honour.

2 SIMPSON J: I agree with Adams J.

3 ADAMS J:

INTRODUCTION

4 The appellant was tried on six charges of indecent or sexual assault, essentially comprising three groups of two offences. He was acquitted of the first four and convicted of the last two. The charges were as follows –

(i) indecent assault at Hurstville Grove between 1 January and 31 December 1986, when the complainant was 5 or 6 years of age;

(ii) indecent assault at Hurstville Grove between 1 January and 31 December 1986, when the complainant was 5 or 6 years of age;

(iii) sexual intercourse without consent at Hurstville Grove between 1 October 1991 and 30 November 1991, when the complainant was 11 years of age;

(iv) sexual intercourse without consent at Hurstville Grove between 1 October 1991 and 30 November 1991, when the complainant was 11 years of age;

(v) sexual intercourse without consent at South Hurstville between 1 April 1995 and 29 February 1996, when the complainant was 15 years of age; and

(vi) sexual intercourse without consent at La Perouse between 1 April 1995 and 29 February 1996, when the complainant was 15 years of age.

5 The sole ground of appeal is that the convictions were unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. In support of this ground, the appellant points to the apparent inconsistency between the verdict of guilty and the verdicts of acquittal as well as to the weaknesses in the prosecution case.

THE INITIAL COMPLAINTS

6 The complainant did not complain to anyone until he was about 17, when he told D (I gather a mature person), in whose house he was then living, about being sexually…

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 SBD

Details

AGLC: Regina v SBD [2003] NSWCCA 235
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 235
Decision Date: 22 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v SBD was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, SBD, was convicted of a serious crime by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. SBD sought to appeal the conviction on the basis that the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable. The evidence presented during the trial contained significant contradictions compared to the initial complaint made by the victim.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable, and if the verdicts of guilt were open on the evidence presented. The court was required to determine if the discrepancies between the complaint and the trial evidence were so significant that they undermined the verdicts of guilt. The court also needed to consider whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts.

The court found that there were substantial inconsistencies between the complaint and the evidence presented at trial, which rendered the verdicts unreasonable. The court held that the discrepancies were so significant that the verdicts of guilt were not open on the evidence. Consequently, the court quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial. The court emphasised that the discrepancies in evidence were critical in reaching its decision, and that the verdicts could not stand given the unreliable nature of the evidence.

Orders