Legal Research
Cases
Z (a pseudonym) v R

Z (a pseudonym) v R

Case [2022] NSWCCA 8 2 February 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Z (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 8
Hearing dates: 5 November 2021
Date of orders: 2 February 2022
Decision date: 02 February 2022
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Brereton JA at [52];
Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [53]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – application for leave to appeal against conviction – whether verdicts unreasonable – principles to be applied – open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
CRIME – appeals – application for leave to appeal against conviction – whether verdicts inconsistent – verdicts able to be reconciled on a logical and reasonable basis – acquittals not necessarily attributable only or principally to doubt about the complainant’s credibility
CRIME – statutory non-publication order on disclosure of identity of victim – s 578A Crimes Act – no appeal against convictions at trial of prescribed sexual offences

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13(1)Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 37(1), 59(1), 61, 61I, 61L, s 578A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 3, 290

Cases Cited:
BF v R [2019] NSWCCA 321
DS v R [2021] NSWCCA 52
Holloway v R [2017] NSWCCA 17
JC v R [2021] NSWCCA 254
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
MG v R [2017] NSWCCA 14
Nguyen v R [2017] NSWCCA 145
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
Prasad v R [2020] NSWCCA 349
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290
R v TK (2009) 74 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCCA 151
RD (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 94
Vasilevski v R [2019] NSWCCA 277

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Z (a pseudonym) (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Smith (Applicant)
G Newton / C Akthar (Respondent)
Solicitors:
McGirr & Associates (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/324404
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order on the identity of the complainant under s 578A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

20 March 2020

Before:

Flannery SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/324404

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: The applicant seeks leave under s 5 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal against two of his three convictions of domestic violence offences following a trial before a judge and jury in the District Court of New South Wales.
The applicant was charged with a number of offences alleged to have occurred…

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 Z (a pseudonym) v R

Details

AGLC: Z (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 8
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 8
Decision Date: 02 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Z (a pseudonym) v R involved an application for leave to appeal against the conviction of the appellant, Z. The dispute centred on the reasonableness of the verdicts and whether there were inconsistencies in the jury’s findings. The decision was handed down by the High Court of Australia. Z was convicted of multiple sexual offences against a victim, which included rape and assault. Z appealed against the conviction, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent.

The central legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the verdicts reached by the jury were unreasonable or inconsistent. The court examined whether the verdicts could be reconciled on a logical and reasonable basis, and if acquittals in the case were necessarily attributable to doubt about the complainant’s credibility. The court considered the principles applicable to appeals against verdicts of guilt, focusing on the jury's role in determining guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the verdicts, while seemingly inconsistent, were not necessarily unreasonable. The court held that the jury could reasonably find Z guilty of some charges while acquitting on others, provided the verdicts were logically consistent and supported by the evidence. The court noted that acquittals could result from various factors beyond just the credibility of the complainant. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, upholding the original convictions. The court also noted that a statutory non-publication order regarding the victim's identity was in place, and there was no appeal against these convictions under the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act.

Orders