Ugle v The King - [2025] VSCA 102

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0028

TROHNE JAI UGLE	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	TAYLOR, LYONS and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 April 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 102
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 1986 (Judge Parrish)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant convicted of two charges of rape – Crown case one of manifest non-consent – Whether direction on reasonable belief in consent should have included reference to whether the applicant took steps to find out whether the complainant was consenting – Whether direction reversed onus of proof – Whether direction invited a compromise verdict – Whether direction on reasonable belief in consent should have included direction on general assumptions as to the consumption of alcohol and flirtatious behaviour by a complainant – No error in direction – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant behaved in a dysregulated manner outside the courtroom on the third day of the trial – Applicant was yelling, crying and flailing arms – Applicant physically escorted from County Court building by his counsel and mother – Applicant observed in that state outside the building by a juror – Assumption that entire jury would know of the incident – No application for discharge of the jury – Direction given as to applicant’s emotional distress – Whether judge should have made enquiry of a juror or jurors as to their knowledge of the incident – Whether incident was an irregularity in the trial incapable of amelioration other than by discharge of the jury – Whether terms of the direction given were adequate – No substantial miscarriage of justice – Leave to appeal refused.

Crimes Act 1958, s 36A; Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 6, 46, 47, 47C, 47G and 47I.

Maric v R (1978) 20 ALR 513; Percival v The Queen [2015] VSCA 2000; R v Halliday (2009) 23 VR 419; I v Western Australia (2006) 165 A Crim R 420; Damien Aubrey Platt v The Queen (2018) 58 VR 593; and Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Ms M Chalmers SC with Ms G Connelly SC
Respondent:		Mr R Gibson KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Victoria Legal Aid
Respondent:	A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TAYLOR JA
LYONS JA
KAYE JA:

Introduction

The applicant faced a trial in the County Court on an indictment alleging three charges of rape. The three offences alleged involved a single complainant and were said to have happened in quick succession during a single episode.
Charge 1 involved an allegation of penile/oral penetration. Charge 2 involved an allegation of penile/anal penetration. Charge 3 involved an allegation of penile/vaginal penetration.
The jury acquitted the applicant of charge 1. He was convicted of charges 2 and 3.
The applicant originally sought leave to appeal against conviction on the following two grounds:
GROUND 1: The…

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 Ugle v The King

Details

AGLC: Ugle v The King [2025] VSCA 102
Case: [2025] VSCA 102
Decision Date: 15 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ugle, was convicted of two counts of rape and appealed against his conviction. The jury had to decide whether the applicant had a reasonable belief in consent, and whether this direction was appropriate. Additionally, the applicant’s disruptive behaviour outside the courtroom during the trial raised concerns about potential prejudice to the jury. The appeal focused on whether the trial judge should have made further enquiries about the incident and whether the direction given to the jury was adequate.

The appeal raised several issues: whether the direction on reasonable belief in consent should have included references to steps taken by the applicant to ascertain consent, if it reversed the onus of proof or invited a compromise verdict, and if it should have included a direction on general assumptions about alcohol consumption and flirtatious behaviour. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the judge should have made enquiries about the juror's knowledge of the applicant’s behaviour outside the courtroom and whether the incident constituted an irregularity that required the discharge of the jury. The court examined whether the jury direction was adequate and whether a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no error in the jury direction regarding the reasonable belief in consent. It found that the direction did not reverse the onus of proof or invite a compromise verdict. The court also held that the direction given to the jury was adequate to address the applicant’s emotional outburst, and no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. Therefore, the applicant’s leave to appeal was refused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal the conviction and sentence. The judgment emphasised the importance of proper jury directions and the assessment of potential prejudice from extraneous incidents during a trial.

Orders