Umunakwe v Director of Public Prosecutions

Umunakwe appealed against a jury conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The central dispute concerned whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence presented at trial.

The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the evidence, particularly concerning the reliability of the complainant, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. This involved assessing the role of an appellate court when reviewing a jury's verdict on grounds of unreasonableness or lack of evidentiary support.

The Court applied the established principles for appellate review of jury verdicts, which require the appellate court to consider whether, after making full allowance for the jury's role as the primary finder of fact, no reasonable jury, acting on the evidence, could have reached the verdict under appeal. The Court found that the evidence presented was capable of supporting the jury's findings, and therefore the verdict was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.