Tanujaya v The King - [2025] NSWCCA 154

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Tanujaya v R [2025] NSWCCA 154
Hearing dates: 12 September 2025
Date of orders: 01 October 2025
Decision date: 01 October 2025
Before: Stern JA at [1];
Free JA at [61];
Rigg J at [62]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME — appeals — appeal against conviction — unreasonable verdict — whether jury’s verdicts of guilty for six counts of sexual intercourse without consent were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence — where no reasonable doubt as to applicant’s guilt — where it was open to jury to be satisfied that applicant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of each of the six offences with which he was charged — where leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61I
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b)

Cases Cited:
Harper v R [2022] NSWCCA 211
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
RvMarkuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v ZT [2025] HCA 9; 99 ALJR 676

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Steven Tanujaya (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
JS Stratton SC (Applicant)
C Young (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Justinian Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/364819
Publication restriction: Section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) prohibits the publication of the name of the complainant, or any matter that is likely to lead to her identification.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

16 December 2024

Before:

Turnbull DCJ

File Number(s):

2022/364819

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 1 July 2024, a jury of twelve unanimously convicted the applicant, Steven Tanujaya, of six counts of sexual intercourse without consent, knowing that the complainant, CK, did not consent, contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offending occurred in the early hours of 11 September 2022 at CK’s apartment. CK performed oral sex on the applicant (oral intercourse) consensually, and they had consensual penile-vaginal (vaginal) intercourse which was followed, on the Crown case, by six instances of non-consensual sexual intercourse, comprising three instances of penile-anal (anal) (counts 1, 4 and 6), one instance of oral (count 2) and two instances of vaginal (counts 3 and 5) intercourse, corresponding to the six offences of which the applicant was convicted.

The applicant did not give evidence at trial but an electronically recorded police interview with him on 3 December 2022 (shortly after his arrest on that day) was played to the jury. He did not dispute that two incidents of penile-vaginal intercourse and two incidents of penile-anal intercourse took place between him and CK on 11 September 2022, and that he choked and slapped her, but he said that CK consented…

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 Tanujaya v The King

Details

AGLC: Tanujaya v The King [2025] NSWCCA 154
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 154
Decision Date: 01 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tanujaya appealed against his conviction by the County Court at first instance, where he was found guilty on six counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The applicant argued that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence, despite the trial judge’s direction to the jury that each count of the charge was to be considered separately. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which needed to determine whether the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable in light of the evidence presented.

The court considered the nature of the appeal against conviction, focusing on whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The applicant submitted that there was no reasonable doubt as to his guilt, and that it was open to the jury to be satisfied that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of each of the six offences with which he was charged. The court examined the evidence and the jury's reasoning process, assessing whether the jury had followed the trial judge's direction and whether the verdicts were consistent with the evidence.

Upon review, the court found that the jury had properly followed the trial judge's directions and that the verdicts were consistent with the evidence. The jury had been correctly informed that each count was to be considered separately, and it was open to them to be satisfied that the applicant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of each offence. The court concluded that the verdicts were not unreasonable and that there was no basis for the appeal to succeed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The applicant's submissions did not demonstrate that the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable, and the verdicts were well-supported by the evidence. The court held that the jury had exercised their function correctly in reaching their decisions, and therefore, the appeal was unsuccessful. The conviction on all six counts of sexual intercourse without consent was upheld.

Orders