//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe gives general legal information, not legal advice. For the authoritative text, check the official register of the law's own jurisdiction, such as the Federal Register of Legislation for Commonwealth laws.
[1997] TASSC 107
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of Tasmania
1997-09-22
Slicer JJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
For the reasons stated by Underwood J, I am not satisfied that the ground has been made out.
I am of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.
Kevin Reginald Duniam
R [1997] TASSC 107
Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Particular grounds - Unreasonable or insupportable verdict - Where appeal dismissed - Inconsistent verdicts - Test to be applied - Duty to consider each count separately. McKenzie v R [1996] HCA 35; (1996) 141 ALR 70, applied. (Aust Dig Criminal Law [969]).
Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Particular grounds - Misdirection and non-direction - General matters - Failure to give a special direction with respect to evidence from the complainant about what she said by way of complaint long after the event - Evidence elicited in cross-examination as a matter of credit - Special direction only required in the case of evidence of recent complaint. Jones [1997] HCA 12; (1997) 143 ALR 52, distinguished. (Aust Dig Criminal Law [971]).
Ground 1 of the notice of appeal does not require this Court to examine all of the evidence given at the trial and make its own independent assessment of that evidence to determine whether the verdicts are unsafe and unsatisfactory. (Cf M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1995) 126 ALR 325). The task of this Court is to examine the evidence and look at the verdicts to see whether the verdicts of guilty and the verdicts of not guilty are so inconsistent that they are an affront to logic and common sense which is totally unacceptable. For the reasons I have given, this is not established. Ground 1 is not made out.
"This case is not of that type where the acts charged are so linked in time and nature that an acquittal on one must carry an acquittal on the others (Whelan [1973] VicRp 26; [1973] VR 268; Lovett [1972] VicRp 46; [1972] VR 413 and Kelly (1985) 38 SASR 561). In that situation not to enter acquittals in respect of the counts on which convictions were recorded would be to deny the validity of the acquittal and to deny the accused the benefit of the acquittal. In the present case, each transaction had to be considered separately and it was possible for the jury both to convict on some and acquit on others ...".
(1996) 141 ALR 70
(1997) 143 ALR 52
(1987) 44 SASR 591
(1995) 126 ALR 325
(1993) 10 WAR 279
(1985) 38 SASR 561