Sirl v The Queen; The Queen v Sirl - [2020] ACTCA 37

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Sirl v The Queen; The Queen v Sirl
Citation:	[2020] ACTCA 37
Hearing Date:	22 May 2020
DecisionDate:	10 July 2020
Before:	Elkaim J, Robinson AJ and Crowe AJ
Decision:	See [252] – [253]
Catchwords:	APPEAL – CONVICTION – Unsafe or Unreasonable Having Regard to the Evidence – Examination of the record – whether the jury ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt – objective evidence of phone records APPEAL – SENTENCE – Manifestly Inadequate Sentences – Degree of accumulation – inadequate extension of nonparole period
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 5531 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37O
Cases Cited:	M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487 O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12; 94 ALJR 394 R v Lindsay [2020] ACTCA 2
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Robert Glen Sirl (Appellant/Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) J White SC (Appellant/Respondent)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Appellant/Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 44 of 2019; ACTCA 59 of 2019; ACTCA 60 of 2019; ACTCA 7 of 2020
Decision under appeal:	Court: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Burns J Date of Decision: 11 September 2019 Case Title: R v Sirl Citation: SCC 19 of 2019

Court: Supreme Court of the ACT

Before: Burns J

Date of Decision: 12 December 2019

Case Title: R v Sirl (No 2)

Citation: [2019] ACTSC 388

Court: Supreme Court of the ACT

Before: Mossop J

Date of Decision: 12 December 2019

Case Title: R v Sirl (No 3)

Citation: [2019] ACTSC 355

Court: Supreme Court of the ACT

Before: Murrell CJ

Date of Decision: 6 February 2020

Case Title: R v Sirl (No 4)

Citation: [2020] ACTSC 23

THE COURT:

Introduction

On 3 September 2019 Mr Robert Sirl went to trial before a judge (Burns J) and a jury facing two counts, one of sexual intercourse without consent and one of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm.

It is important to note immediately that the two counts arose from the same act of sexual intercourse. It was alleged that sexual intercourse between Mr Sirl and the complainant took place without the complainant’s consent and that, during the sexual intercourse, the grievous bodily harm was inflicted.

On 11 September 2019 the jury found Mr Sirl guilty on both counts.

On 23 September 2019 Mr Sirl went to a separate trial before Mossop J and a jury, facing a charge of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person. The jury convicted him of this charge on 26 September 2019. There is no appeal from this conviction.

On 12 December 2019 Mr Sirl was sentenced, separately, by Burns J and Mossop J in respect of the offences for which he had been convicted in the above trials.

On 6 February 2020 Mr Sirl pleaded guilty to a single offence of maintaining…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sirl v The Queen; The Queen v Sirl and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] ACTCA 37
Decision Date: 10 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Sirl and The Queen, appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales against convictions and sentences imposed in the District Court. The dispute concerned the safety and reasonableness of the jury's verdict of guilty against Sirl, and alternatively, whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate.

The Court was required to determine whether the jury's verdict of guilty was unsafe or unreasonable, having regard to all the evidence presented at trial, particularly objective evidence such as phone records, and whether the jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to Sirl's guilt. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the sentences imposed were so inadequate as to be manifestly so, and whether the degree of accumulation of sentences and the extension of the non-parole period were insufficient.

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the trial record to assess the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. It considered the objective evidence, including phone records, in conjunction with other testimonial and circumstantial evidence to determine if a reasonable doubt existed regarding Sirl's guilt. The Court applied principles relating to the appellate review of jury verdicts, focusing on whether the verdict was one which no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have reached. In relation to sentence, the Court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for consistency, proportionality, and the impact of accumulating sentences, to determine if the original sentences were demonstrably inadequate.

The Court allowed Sirl's appeal against conviction, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The Crown's appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [252] – [253]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.