Legal Research
Cases
Slattery v R

Slattery v R

Case [2023] NSWCCA 117 19 May 2023

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Reasonable Doubt

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Slattery v R [2023] NSWCCA 117
Hearing dates: 2 December 2022
Date of orders: 19 May 2023
Decision date: 19 May 2023
Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Ward P at [171];
Wilson J at [174]
Decision:
(1)   Grant leave to appeal other than in respect of Ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal.
(2)   Allow the appeal in part, quash the qualified finding of guilt in respect of Count 13, and enter a verdict that the Appellant is not guilty of the offence charged as Count 13.
(3) With respect to the remaining limiting terms –
(a)   grant leave to the Appellant to file written submissions with respect to any possible variation of the limiting terms within two weeks of the date of this judgment;
(b)   grant leave to the Director to file submissions in reply within four weeks of the date of this judgment; and
(c)     direct that if either party wishes to be heard orally with respect to a variation of the sentence, an application should be made within 7 days of the filing of the Director’s submissions in response.
(4)   Otherwise dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – principles to be applied in determining an unreasonable verdict ground of appeal where the accused was found guilty after a trial before judge alone – relevance of the reasons of the trial judge – proper approach to arguments alleging specific error in the reasoning of the trial judge – whether trial judge ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – historical sexual offences against three complainants – where appellant sought to impugn reliability of complainants’ evidence on appeal – inconsistencies in complainants’ evidence concerning questions of chronology and timing – whether inconsistencies produced reasonable doubt about the complainants’ identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the offences – advantage of trial judge in seeing and hearing witnesses give evidence – whether inherently improbable that appellant would commit acts of child sexual abuse in the presence of others
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction — miscarriage of justice – whether failure of defence counsel to adduce evidence of the accused’s good character gave rise to miscarriage of justice – whether failure of defence counsel to put evidence of prior criminal convictions to witnesses as a basis for challenging their credibility gave rise to miscarriage of justice – whether appellant deprived of real chance of an acquittal – no miscarriage of justice
MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – person unfit to be tried – special hearing – appeal from qualified findings of guilt after special hearing conducted pursuant to s 55 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – whether qualified findings of guilt were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence – principles to be applied – relevance of…

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 Slattery v R

Details

AGLC: Slattery v R [2023] NSWCCA 117
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 117
Decision Date: 19 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Slattery, was convicted of multiple counts of historical sexual offences against three complainants and appealed against his conviction. The appeal centred on whether the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable, focusing on inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence and the reliability of their identification of the appellant. Additionally, the appellant contested the failure of his defence counsel to adduce evidence of his good character and prior criminal convictions to challenge the credibility of the witnesses. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence were significant enough to produce a reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt and whether the trial judge should have entertained such a doubt. The court also examined whether the failure of the defence counsel to present certain evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court considered the principles governing the determination of an unreasonable verdict, particularly the relevance of the trial judge's reasons and the proper approach to arguments alleging specific errors in the trial judge's reasoning.

The court concluded that the trial judge's verdict was not unreasonable. The inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence, while noted, did not undermine the reliability of their identification of the appellant to the extent required to produce a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the advantage the trial judge had in observing the witnesses and assessing their credibility. Additionally, the court found that the failure of the defence counsel to present evidence of the appellant's good character and prior criminal convictions did not deprive him of a real chance of an acquittal. The appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders