SKA v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 205

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: SKA v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 205 Hearing dates: 14 December 2011 Decision date: 20 September 2012 Before: Beazley JA at [1]; Adams J at [262]; Hislop J at [323] Decision: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Quash the convictions in respect of all counts; 3. Order that the appellant be acquitted in respect of counts 4 and 5 of the indictment; 4. Order that the matter be remitted for a retrial in respect of counts 1, 2 and 3. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - Sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated indecent assault - Challenge to jury verdicts - Whether verdicts unreasonable and not supported by evidence - Whether on whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that accused was guilty - Court undertakes independent assessment of evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - Sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated indecent assault - Context evidence - Correctness of directions - Risk that jury might use as propensity evidence - Separate consideration of counts - Whether directions adequate - Whether conviction dangerous - Significance of complainant's evidence as to dates - Whether new trial appropriate.

EVIDENCE - Application to adduce new evidence - Principles governing the admissibility of new evidence - New evidence sought to be adduced not of such cogency as to cause the court to entertain a reasonable doubt as to appellant's guilt - Application dismissed. Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Criminal Appeal Rules Cases Cited: Aouad and El-Zeyat v R [2011] NSWCCA 61; 207 A Crim R 411 Chivers v R [2010] NSWCCA 134 DJV v R [2008] NSWCCA 272; 200 A Crim R 206 Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34 DTS v R [2008] NSWCCA 329; 192 A Crim R 204 JDK v R; R v JDK [2009] NSWCCA 76; 194 A Crim R 333 Jones v R [1997] HCA 56; (1997) 191 CLR 439 Kaifoto aka Teaupa v R [2006] NSWCCA 186 Longman v The Queen [1989] HCA 60; 168 CLR 79 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487 MFA v R [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606 Morris v R [1987] HCA 50; 163 CLR 454 Murray v The Queen [2002] HCA 26; 211 CLR 193 Pahuja v R (1987) 49 SASR 191; 30 A Crim R 118 Qualtieri v R [2006] NSWCCA 95; 171 A Crim R 463 R v Abou-Chabake [2004] NSWCCA 356; 149 A Crim R 417 R v ATM [2000] NSWCCA 475 R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290; 52 NSWLR 82 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161 Ratten v The Queen [1974] HCA 35; 131 CLR 510 Rees v R [2010] NSWCCA 66 RGM v R [2012] NSWCCA 89 Seymour v R [2006] NSWCCA 206; 162 A Crim R 576 SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 1; 243 CLR 400 Wood v R [2012] NSWCCA 21 Category: Principal judgment Parties: SKA (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: H Dhanji SC; C Alexander (Appellant) J Girdham (Respondent) Crawford and Duncan Lawyers (Appellant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2008/2784 Publication restriction: No Decision under appeal Date of Decision: 2009-02-06 00:00:00 Before: Finnane DCJ File Number(s): 2008/11/0763