SKA v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by SKA against the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The applicant sought to appeal his conviction on five charges, arguing that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The charges related to alleged offences occurring in two distinct periods, with particular focus on the timing of the latter two charges.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had properly applied the test for determining if a jury verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, as established in *M v The Queen*. This involved considering whether the appellate court had conducted an independent assessment of the evidence and whether it was sufficient to allow the verdict to stand, or if it would be dangerous to allow it to remain. A further issue concerned whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred by relying solely on a transcript of the complainant's evidence, rather than viewing the video recording. The Court also considered the weight to be given to the trial judge's opinion regarding the reasonableness of the jury's satisfaction of guilt.

The High Court reasoned that the Court of Criminal Appeal's assessment of the evidence, particularly concerning the timing of the alleged offences and the defence alibi, was not sufficiently independent. It noted that the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment had not referred to the applicant's activities on 22 December 2006, which was relevant to the defence. The Court reiterated that an appellate court must make its own independent assessment of the evidence's sufficiency and quality when considering whether a verdict is unreasonable, rather than merely determining if there was *some* evidence upon which a jury might convict. The Court concluded that the Court of Criminal Appeal had not adequately discharged this obligation.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissing the applicant's appeal against conviction, and remitted the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a rehearing. Special leave to appeal was granted in respect of grounds relating to the reasonableness of the verdict and the sufficiency of the evidence, but refused on other grounds.