Snyder (a pseudonym) v The Queen

[2022] VSCA 140

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction
4. › Judge alone trial
5. › Whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to evidence
6. › Approach where complainant deceased before trial
7. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 276(1)(a), 420D, 420E
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction
4. › Judge alone trial
5. › Admission and use of hearsay evidence
6. › Complaint evidence where complainant unavailable
7. › Whether defence counsel waived objection to hearsay evidence
8. › Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 59, 62, 65
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction
4. › Sexual offences
5. › Reliability of complainant's evidence
6. › Expert evidence on memory reliability
7. › Prior inconsistent statements
8. › Whether trial judge erred in application of expert evidence and approach to inconsistencies
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Sentence
4. › Sexual penetration of child under 16
5. › Totality principle
6. › Whether judge erred in connecting absence of remorse to weight given to totality
7. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive

Quick Take

In a judge alone trial under s 420D of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), the approach to unreasonable verdict appeals under s 276(1)(a) follows the same principles as for jury verdicts, as established in M v The Queen and Filippou v The Queen. Expert evidence on memory reliability informs the unreliability warning but does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle to acceptance of a complainant's evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Where defence counsel acquiesces in a process of taking evidentiary objections 'in the running' and then fails to object, the objection is waived.