Legal Research
Cases
Sladek v The King

Sladek v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 119 4 June 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0059

RICHARD SLADEK	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	EMERTON ACJ, PRIEST and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 May 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 June 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 119
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 435 (Judge Karapanagiotidis)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant convicted of one charge of rape and acquitted of one charge of attempted rape – Both charges arising from incident involving same complainant – At trial only issue whether complaint consented to sexual penetration – Whether jury verdicts inconsistent – Application for leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Guilty verdict set aside.

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 321N.

MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; R v Kirkman (1987) 44 SASR 591; R v TK (2009) 24 NSWLR 299, considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr C Hooper
Respondent:		Ms S Clancy
Solicitors
Applicant:	Ann Valos Criminal Law
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

EMERTON ACJ
PRIEST JA
KAYE JA:

The applicant was charged, on indictment, with one charge of attempted rape (charge 1), and one charge of rape (charge 2). Those offences were alleged to have occurred at the applicant’s home in Harkness on 28 October 2018. The jury that was empanelled on his trial returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge of attempted rape, but guilty on the charge of rape. The applicant was sentenced, on that charge, to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 1 month.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on the charge of rape on two grounds, namely:
GROUND 1 — The verdict of guilty on charge 2 cannot be reconciled logically or factually with the jury’s verdict of not guilty on charge 1, to such an extent that that [sic] it is an affront to logic and common sense which is unacceptable and strongly suggests compromise in the performance of the jury’s duty given that:
(a)The events formed part of the same incident and occurred in close temporal proximity such that there is not distinction between the evidence in respect of each charge;
(b)It was not reasonably open to the jury to find that that [sic] the complaint was consenting to the actions the subject of charge 1 but not consenting to the actions the subject of charge 2 particularly given the admissions in the record of interview and the complainant’s own account; and
(c)Given the complainant’s evidence, the verdict of not guilty on charge 1 cannot be explained merely on the basis that the jury may have found the applicant was not attempting to penetrate the complainant’s vagina.
GROUND 2 — The verdict of guilty on charge 2 is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence in respect of the complainant’s actions prior to, during and at…

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 Sladek v The King

Details

AGLC: Sladek v The King [2024] VSCA 119
Case: [2024] VSCA 119
Decision Date: 4 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sladek v The King involved an appeal against a conviction for one count of rape, while the defendant was acquitted of another count of attempted rape, both charges stemming from an incident with the same complainant. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, given that the only issue at trial was whether the complainant had consented to sexual penetration. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction, arguing that the verdicts were inconsistent and that he should be acquitted of the rape charge as well. The High Court granted the application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the guilty verdict on the rape charge.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, given that both charges arose from the same incident involving the same complainant. The court examined the nature of the jury's task in determining whether the complainant consented to sexual penetration and whether it was possible for the jury to find the applicant guilty of one charge while acquitting him of the other. The court also considered whether the verdicts were irreconcilable, as established in previous cases such as MacKenzie v The Queen and MFA v The Queen. The High Court held that the verdicts were indeed inconsistent, as the jury could not have found the applicant guilty of one charge without necessarily finding him guilty of the other.

The High Court found that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, as it was impossible for the jury to find the applicant guilty of the rape charge without also finding him guilty of the attempted rape charge. The court held that the jury's task in determining whether the complainant consented to sexual penetration was a continuous process, and the verdicts were irreconcilable, as established in previous cases such as R v Kirkman and R v TK. The High Court concluded that the verdicts were inconsistent and that the applicant should be acquitted of the rape charge. Consequently, the court set aside the guilty verdict on the rape charge and allowed the appeal.

The High Court's decision in Sladek v The King demonstrates the importance of ensuring consistency in jury verdicts, particularly when charges arise from the same incident involving the same complainant. The court's ruling highlights the need for careful consideration of the nature of the jury's task and the potential for irreconcilable verdicts in cases involving sexual offences. The court's decision also reinforces the importance of ensuring that the legal process is fair and just for all parties involved, including the accused and the complainant. The final orders in this case involved setting aside the guilty verdict on the rape charge, resulting in the applicant's acquittal on that count.

Orders