Stinson v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 191

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Stinson v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 191

FILE NUMBER(S):
2006/408

HEARING DATE(S): 15/06/06

DECISION DATE: 22/06/2006

PARTIES:
David Sherwood Stinson (Appl)
Regina (Resp)

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J Hidden J Kirby J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/41/0251

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Phelan DCJ

COUNSEL:
Ms S Kluss (Appl)
Ms J Girdham (Resp/Crown)

SOLICITORS:
Ross Hill & Assocs (Appl)
S Kavanagh (Resp/Crown)

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Practice & Procedure
5 counts of sexual intercourse without consent
not guilty verdicts on 2 counts and rejection of circumstance of aggravation
were verdicts of guilty inconsistent
were verdicts unreasonable.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF AMENDED 11/7/06
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2006/408
GROVE J
HIDDEN J
KIRBY J
Thursday 22 June 2006

DAVID SHERWOOD STINSON v REGINA

Judgment

GROVE J: I agree with Kirby J.
HIDDEN J: I agree with Kirby J.
KIRBY J: David Sherwood Stinson (the appellant) was charged with a number of offences, arising out of a complaint by a person who will be referred to as "Ms A" (the complainant). The indictment may be summarised as follows:
Count 1:               That, on 4 October 2002, he had sexual intercourse without consent in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that he maliciously inflicted actual bodily harm upon the complainant.
Count 2:               Further, that on 4 October 2002, he had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent (in that he inserted his fingers in her anus).
Count 3:               Further, that on 4 October 2002, he had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent (namely, vaginal intercourse).
Count 4:               Further, that on 4 October 2002, he had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent (namely, vaginal intercourse).
Count 5:               Further, that on 4 October 2002, he attempted to have sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent (namely, attempted to insert his penis into her mouth).
Mr Stinson pleaded not guilty to each charge. He stood trial before Phelan DCJ and a jury in Wollongong. He was convicted of an alternative charge in respect of count 1, namely, sexual assault, contrary to s61I Crimes Act 1900, being vaginal intercourse without consent. He was also convicted on counts 3 and 4. He was acquitted on counts 2 and 5. He appeals against his convictions in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4, asserting that they are unreasonable and cannot be supported on the evidence.
The Incident
Mr Stinson and Ms A met in about 1999. Ms A lived with her four children in Bateman's Bay. Mr Stinson lived in Sydney. He came to Bateman's Bay from time to time to see his children, who resided with his former wife. Having met, they established a relationship. When in Bateman's Bay he would stay at her home.
In July 2002, Mr Stinson secured employment in Bateman's Bay. According to the complainant, he then came to her home unannounced with his possessions. She allowed him to…

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 Stinson v Regina

Details

AGLC: Stinson v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 191
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 191
Decision Date: 22 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stinson v Regina involved the appellant, who was found not guilty of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and where the circumstance of aggravation was rejected. The Crown appealed the decision on the grounds that the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable, given that the appellant was acquitted on two counts and the aggravation circumstance was rejected. The court had to determine whether the jury's verdicts were logically sound and based on the evidence presented.

The court examined the evidence and the jury's reasoning in reaching their verdicts. It concluded that the jury had correctly applied the law and that the verdicts were not inconsistent or unreasonable. The court found that the jury could have reasonably accepted that the appellant was not guilty of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent, and that the rejection of the aggravation circumstance was also a reasonable conclusion. The court held that the jury's verdicts were based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdicts. The appellant's acquittal on two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and the rejection of the aggravation circumstance were affirmed. The court's decision emphasised the importance of allowing juries to make their own findings based on the evidence presented, without undue interference from the courts. This case reinforces the principle that the court should not lightly interfere with a jury's verdict, particularly where the verdict is supported by the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

Orders