Regina v JJN [2003] NSWCCA 402

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v JJN [2003] NSWCCA 402 HEARING DATE(S) : 03/10/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Tobias JA at 1; Howie J at 2; Shaw J at 20 DECISION : (1) Appeal upheld; (2) Convictions and sentences quashed; (3) New trial ordered.

CATCHWORDS : Criminal law - appeal - inconsistant verdicts - applicable principles - directions to juries Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; CASES CITED : M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; MFA v The Queen (2003) 77 ALJR 139; Regina v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; PARTIES : Regina JJN - Appellant FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA CCA 60226/03 COUNSEL : P Miller - Crown M Bozic, SC - Appellant SOLICITORS :

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 02/21/1190 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Williams DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60226 of 2003

Tobias JA Howie J Shaw J

19 December 2003 Regina v J.J.N. Judgment 1 Tobias JA: I agree with Shaw J as well as with the additional comments of Howie J. 2 Howie J: I have received the benefit of reading the draft judgment of Shaw J and, substantially for the reasons his Honour gives, I agree with the orders proposed. I would add a few additional comments in amplification of some of the matters to which Shaw J refers in relation to the ground that the verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent. In the circumstances I do not believe it is necessary once more to set out the facts in any detail. 3 Counsel who appeared at the hearing of the appeal, Mr Bozic QC, conceded that there was no practical difference between the two grounds of appeal originally raised. The argument on behalf of the appellant was that there was no rational basis upon which the jury could come to different verdicts in respect of the counts alleged against him based upon an assessment of the complainant's reliability. Mr Bozic submitted that a finding that the guilty verdicts were unreasonable would arise from a consideration of what was said to be the unsatisfactory nature of the complainant's evidence, its defects and inconsistencies and the fact that, by reason of the acquittal of the appellant on some counts, the jury must have looked upon the evidence of the complainant "with disfavour"; see R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82 at [234]. 4 In the written submission on behalf of the appellant the argument relied upon was stated thus: