Regina v Steenson - [2000] NSWCCA 143

CITATION: Regina v Steenson [2000] NSWCCA 143

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60441/99

HEARING DATE(S): 19 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 May 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA (Respondent)
Robin John STEENSON (Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA at 1; Dunford J at 2; Simpson J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/61/0079

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Christie DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr D C Frearson (Crown/Respondent)
Mr P Byrne SC (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: S E O/Connor (Crown/Respondent)
Nelson Keane & Hemmingway (Appellant)

CASES CITED:
Jones v R (1997) 191 CLR 439
R v Crisologo (1997) 99 A Crim R 178

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60441/99

STEIN JA
DUNFORD J

SIMPSON J

Friday 5 May 2000

REGINA v Robin John STEENSON

Judgment
1    STEIN JA: I agree with Simpson J
2    DUNFORD J: I agree with Simpson J.

SIMPSON J :

3    On 15 June 1999 the appellant was charged in the District Court at Dubbo on an indictment containing two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. He entered pleas of not guilty to each charge and a jury was accordingly empanelled. The evidence, addresses and summing-up were completed by 1 pm on the second day of the trial, 16 June. At 3.29 pm the following day, 17 June, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second. The appellant appeals against the conviction.
4    The Crown case may be outlined briefly. From late in 1995 the appellant and the complainant had been living together in a de facto relationship. Early in 1996 they moved to a rural property outside Dubbo. The relationship quickly deteriorated and was marked by incidents of verbal abuse and physical violence directed by the appellant towards the complainant. Notwithstanding a number of such incidents the two continued to live together and share a bed. One morning in March 1996 the appellant made sexual approaches to the complainant which she unequivocally rejected. He persisted, forced himself upon her, and with his penis penetrated her vagina. This gave rise to the first count on the indictment on which the jury acquitted the appellant.
5    After this alleged assault the complainant had some bruising to various parts of her body. Nevertheless, she did not report the incident to anybody and she continued to share the bed with the appellant. Thereafter there were further incidents of non sexual violence directed by the appellant to the complainant.
6    The event giving rise to the second count was alleged to have occurred within a few days of 7 April which was the complainant’s birthday. The two were in bed together when the appellant again made sexual advances to the complainant who had been asleep until awakened by him. The appellant held the complainant by the shoulders and penetrated her vaginally with his penis. Although the complainant’s evidence was that this act of vaginal intercourse was non consensual and that she clearly signified that she did not wish to engage…

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 Steenson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Steenson [2000] NSWCCA 143
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 143
Decision Date: 5 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Steenson was an appeal against conviction heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, Robin John Steenson, had been convicted in the District Court of sexual intercourse without consent. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant had been charged with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The complainant and the appellant had been in a de facto relationship and had moved to a rural property. The relationship had deteriorated rapidly and was marked by incidents of verbal abuse and physical violence directed by the appellant towards the complainant. The events giving rise to the two counts of the indictment were two separate incidents of sexual intercourse which the complainant had rejected. The jury acquitted the appellant on the first count and convicted him on the second. The appellant argued that the verdicts were inconsistent and that the verdict of guilty was unreasonable. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court found that the verdicts were not inconsistent as the issues in relation to the two charges were completely different. The Court also found that the conviction was not unreasonable. The delay in reporting the events and discrepancies in the complainant's accounts were matters for the jury to evaluate and the jury had resolved these against the appellant.

Orders