Xu v R

The applicant in this matter, Xu, was convicted of various sexual assault offences. The appeal against the conviction was heard in the High Court of Australia. Xu sought an extension of time to lodge his grounds of appeal and was granted this extension by the court. The appeal was brought on seven grounds, the most significant of which was the assertion that the trial miscarried and that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice. This was said to arise from the way in which the Crown prosecutor opened on the complainant’s intoxication and the element of consent, and the trial judge’s response to this. The applicant also argued that the trial miscarried because there was no expert evidence on intoxication at trial, and because of the trial judge’s ruling to disallow the complainant from being cross-examined on a particular document. Xu further argued that the verdicts were unreasonable. The applicant sought to adduce new evidence on intoxication, the complainant’s residence and CCTV footage.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time to lodge grounds of appeal. The court found that the trial did not miscarry, and that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice. The court held that the Crown prosecutor’s opening was not improper, and that the trial judge’s response was appropriate. The court held that the absence of expert evidence on intoxication did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and that the trial judge’s ruling to disallow cross-examination on a particular document was not an error of law. The court held that the verdicts were not unreasonable, and that the alleged inconsistencies were matters that were raised at trial and were for the jury to determine. The court held that the new evidence sought to be adduced by Xu did not prove his innocence or raise a doubt about his guilt. The appeal was dismissed, and Xu’s convictions were upheld.