NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: LS v R [2024] NSWCCA 110 Hearing dates: 29 April 2024 Date of orders: 1 July 2024 Decision date: 01 July 2024 Before: Ward P at [1]; Hamill J at [260]; Dhanji J at [275] Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal against conviction. 2. Allow the appeal in part. 3. Quash the conviction in relation to count 2 and otherwise dismiss the appeal and confirm the convictions on the remaining counts. 4. Quash the aggregate sentence imposed on 25 August 2023 and remit the matter to the District Court for re-sentencing. Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Child sex offences – Sexual intercourse with child <10 – Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity – Where applicant was the complainant's grandfather – Where offending occurred over a period of four years – Whether inconsistencies between complainant's account and objective evidence were sufficient that jury should have had reasonable doubt as to applicant's guilt Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66A, 66DA, 66EB Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5 Cases Cited: AJ v R (2022) 110 NSWLR 339; [2022] NSWCCA 136 Arizabaleta v R [2023] NSWCCA 217 AS v R [2022] NSWCCA 291 AZ v R [2018] NSWCCA 294 Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; [2011] HCA 25 BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48 Bolton v R [2023] NSWCCA 211 CLC v R [2015] NSWCCA 248 Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25 Hawi v R [2014] NSWCCA 83 Ho v R[2023] NSWCCA 245 JC v R[2023] NSWCCA 231 JL v R [2023] NSWCCA 99 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56 Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29 Lee v R [2023] NSWCCA 203 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; [1985] HCA 66 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Marco v R [2023] NSWCCA 307 MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53 Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50 Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 290; [2001] NSWCCA 290 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 Reed v R [2006] NSWCCA 314 Reyne (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 201 Rossi v R [2024] NSWCCA 17 Rubinstein v R [2023] NSWCCA 288 RW v R [2023] NSWCCA 2 Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81 Sita v R [2022] NSWCCA 90 SKA v R [2009] NSWCCA 186 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13 Stevenson v R [2022] NSWCCA 133 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 VP v R [2021] NSWCCA 11 Z (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 8 Category: Principal judgment Parties: LS (a pseudonym) (Applicant) Rex (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: GD Wendler with D Shridhar (Applicant) A Bonnor (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate