Rn v R

[2024] NSWCCA 20

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Misdirection and non-direction
5. › Failure to give Markuleski direction
6. › Whether direction required in word against word case
7. › Whether failure caused miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Misdirection and non-direction
5. › Trial judge's characterisation of complainant's evidence as 'consistent'
6. › Whether characterisation deprived applicant of chance of acquittal
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Unreasonable verdict
5. › Sexual assault offences
6. › Whether open to jury to be satisfied of date of offences
7. › Whether verdicts supported by evidence
8. › M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487

Quick Take

A Markuleski direction is not required where the trial judge has repeatedly and clearly conveyed to the jury that the complainant's credibility is in issue and that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the truthfulness and reliability of the complainant's evidence on each count, even in a word-against-word case.

Case Details

Citation[2024] NSWCCA 20

CourtNSWCCA

JurisdictionNew South Wales

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on8

2023Passmore v RNSWCCA 65
2022Saunders v RNSWCCA 273
2021Zhou v RNSWCCA 278
2020Keen v RNSWCCA 59
and 4 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in