Legal Research
Cases
Seccull v The King

Seccull v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 216 11 September 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0066

JON SECCULL	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, ORR and KIDD JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 September 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 216
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Seccull [2023] VCC 263 (Judge Dawes)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Rape – Whether verdict of the jury unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – Open to the jury to accept evidence of contemporaneous complaint supporting complainant – Leave to appeal refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant		Mr P Smallwood and Ms S Locke
Respondent		Ms E Ruddle KC with Mr G Buchhorn
Solicitors
Applicant	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
Respondent	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
ORR JA
KIDD JA:

Introduction

An indictment filed in the County Court (‘the second indictment’) contained 15 charges against the applicant: four charges of penile-oral rape (charges 1, 4, 8 and 9); four charges of penile-vaginal rape (charges 2, 11, 13 and 15); three charges of penile-anal rape (charges 7, 10 and 14); one charge of digital-anal rape (charge 6); two charges of common assault (charges 3 and 5); and one charge of making a threat to inflict serious injury (charge 12).[1] ‘SM’, the applicant’s wife, was the complainant on each charge.
[1]The first indictment filed did not contain a charge of penile-anal rape on 14 February 2014, which became charge 7. SM first disclosed the alleged penile-anal rape to the prosecutor shortly before the applicant’s case was first listed for trial. See [45] below.
The applicant was tried on that indictment throughout May and June 2021 (‘the first trial’). On 11 June 2021, the jury at that trial found the applicant guilty on nine of the rape charges (charges 4, 6 to 11, and 13 to 15), both charges of common assault[2] and the charge of making a threat to inflict serious injury.[3] The judge directed verdicts of acquittal on two other charges of rape (charges 1 and 9), and the jury acquitted the applicant on a third (charge 2). Subsequently, on 18 October 2021, the trial judge sentenced the applicant to 15 years’ imprisonment, and fixed a non-parole period of 10 years and 6 months.
[2]Charges 3 and 5, contrary to common law.
[3]Charge 12, in breach of s 21 of the Crimes Act 1958.
Almost a year later, on 30 September 2022, this Court allowed an appeal against conviction, set aside the convictions in the first trial and ordered that there be a new trial.[4]
[4]Seccull v The King (2022) 69 VR 454 (Priest AP, Niall JA and Kidd AJA).
The present application for leave to appeal against conviction relates to verdicts returned by a jury at the new trial ordered by this Court (‘the second trial’).
For the purposes of the second trial a new indictment (‘the third indictment’) was filed containing nine charges of rape (charges 2, 4 to…

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 Seccull v The King

Details

AGLC: Seccull v The King [2025] VSCA 216
Case: [2025] VSCA 216
Decision Date: 11 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Seccull v The King involved an appeal against a conviction for rape. The defendant, Seccull, was found guilty by a jury based on the testimony of the complainant and other evidence presented during the trial. The primary issue before the court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. Specifically, the appeal focused on whether the jury was correct to accept the complainant's evidence of a contemporaneous complaint about the alleged rape.

The court examined the legal standards for overturning a jury's verdict, particularly the principle that a jury is entitled to accept the evidence of a contemporaneous complaint if they find it credible. The court also considered whether the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the defendant was guilty of rape. The defence argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the jury's verdict was unreasonable, but the court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reach their decision.

In its reasoning, the court held that the jury was entitled to consider and accept the complainant's contemporaneous complaint as part of the overall evidence. The court found that the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and other supporting material, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The appeal was dismissed because the court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and could be supported by the evidence presented. Consequently, the defendant's conviction for rape was upheld.

Orders