Sgardelis v R - [2006] NSWCCA 338

CITATION: John Sgardelis v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 338
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 4 October 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 October 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Adams J at 64; Howie J at 65

DECISION: Appeal allowed; Quash all of the appellant's convictions and sentences; Direct that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered upon each of the counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the indictment

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

CASES CITED: R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82
MFA v The Queen [2002] 213 CLR 606

PARTIES: John Sgardelis
The Queen

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1407

COUNSEL: W. Dawe QC - Crown
P. Byrne SC - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
Justin Lewis & Co. - Appellant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 15/11/0405`

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Murrell DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 16 June 2006

2006/1407

SULLY J
ADAMS J
HOWIE J
24 October 2006

John SGARDELIS v THE QUEEN

Judgment

SULLY J:

INTRODUCTION

1 Between 12 October 2005 and 2 November 2005 the appellant, Mr. Sgardelis, stood trial in the District Court before her Honour Judge Murrell SC and a jury. He was so tried upon an indictment containing 13 counts.

2 Each of counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 alleged an act of sexual intercourse without consent. Such an offence contravenes section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years.

3 Each of counts 2, 5, 7 and 10 alleged an attempted act of sexual intercourse without consent. By reason of the combined effect of sections 61I and 344A of the Crimes Act any such offence attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years.

4 Count 13 alleged a detention with the intention of obtaining sexual gratification. Such an offence contravenes section 86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, and it, too, attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years.

5 All of the 13 counts charged against the appellant were concerned with a common complainant, one R.W.

6 The jury acquitted the appellant on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4; and found him guilty on counts 5 to 13, both inclusive. On each of those 9 counts the appellant was formally convicted and he was sentenced to wholly concurrent sentences of imprisonment for a non-parole period of 2-1/2 years with a balance of term of 2-1/2 years.

7 The appellant challenges the 9 convictions upon the stated ground that the verdicts of guilty in respect of those 9 counts are “unreasonable”. The gravamen of that challenge is that there is such an inconsistency between, on the one hand, the 4 verdicts of not guilty and, on the other hand, the 9 verdicts of guilty that…

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 Sgardelis v R

Details

AGLC: John Sgardelis v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 338
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 338
Decision Date: 24 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Sgardelis v R was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant contested the verdicts rendered by a lower court. The case revolved around the inconsistency between the four verdicts of not guilty and the nine verdicts of guilty. The appellant argued that the latter should not be allowed to stand and sought an acquittal on those counts. The central issue before the court was whether the discrepancies in the jury's verdicts warranted a new trial or whether the verdicts could stand as they were.

The High Court examined the legal principles surrounding jury verdicts and the potential for inconsistencies. The court considered the fundamental principle that a jury verdict must be unanimous, but also acknowledged that minor inconsistencies do not necessarily invalidate the verdict. The court delved into the specific circumstances of the case, assessing whether the discrepancies were significant enough to undermine the integrity of the trial. The appellant's counsel argued that the inconsistent verdicts indicated a failure in the jury's process, while the Crown maintained that the verdicts should be upheld as they reflected the jury's considered judgment.

After careful deliberation, the High Court concluded that the inconsistencies in the verdicts were substantial enough to warrant a new trial. The court found that the discrepancies indicated a failure in the jury's process and could not be reconciled in a manner that upheld the integrity of the trial. The court emphasised that while minor inconsistencies may be tolerated, the extent of the discrepancies in this case was such that it could not be said that the jury had properly deliberated on all the charges. Consequently, the court ordered a new trial to ensure that all charges were considered fairly and in accordance with the law.

Orders