Sexual Offences – Appeal Against Conviction

This is a case study on an appeal against conviction involving sexual offences. The allegations of non-consensual sexual activity and false imprisonment arose during a 2018 incident. Our client denied all charges.  After a lengthy and delayed proceeding, the jury returned verdicts—convicting on some charges and acquitting on others. On appeal, the Court found the verdicts inconsistent and substituted the verdicts of guilty for acquittal, resulting in our client’s release.

What is alleged to have occurred?

This matter involved allegations of a number of serious sexual offences and false imprisonment arising from a single incident said to be committed in late 2018. The complainant alleged the sexual activity was not consensual and that she had been unable to leave the location where the sexual offences were alleged to have occurred, and that she was fearful of the accused.

Our firm represented the accused person who denied the allegations.

Our client had answered questions in a police record of interview detailing their version of events to police at the time of the alleged offences. They denied the allegations and they described the sexual activity that occurred as being consensual. The client also denied holding the complainant down (forming the false imprisonment charge) and denied there was any attempted penetration (forming the attempted rape charges).

What happened at court?

The matter proceeded to trial in regional Victoria in 2023. The lengthy delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as other issues as the complainant had decided to return home, and to live internationally, mid-way through the court proceedings.

The prosecution had been required to engage in a process called a Mutual Assistance Request with the government of the country the complainant had returned to live in, to ensure she could attend a formal location to give evidence in the trial. This is a process that is quite common but can be a lengthy process depending on the government in the particular country and the diplomatic relationships with Australia.

Once all issues had been resolved and the complainant was ready to give evidence in the trial, the case commenced before judge and jury. Following the evidence and the submissions of both prosecution and defence counsel, the trial charge directed the jury who retired to consider their verdict on all the charges. Once the jury had finalized deliberations, they returned their verdict in relation to all the charges.

The accused was found guilty of two charges of sexual assault and one charge of rape. They were acquitted of one charge of false imprisonment and two charges of attempted rape.

Immediately following the verdict, our lawyers were concerned about its validity. It was not a logical decision in the context of the evidence, the facts and the directions on the law the jury received. The central issue in the case was whether the jury was satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, with the reliability and the credibility of the evidence given by the complainant, and it was our lawyer’s view that our client’s record of interview was credible and gave rise to a reasonable doubt in relation to all the charges, and that the complainant’s evidence, particularly the cross-examination by our defence counsel, gave rise to real concerns about the complainant’s reliability and credibility.

Neither party at the trial, nor on the ultimate appeal, relied on any aspect of the evidence which would render the complainant’s account more cogent, reliable or credible on the charges on which the applicant was convicted, than on the charges on which he was acquitted.

In our view, it was inexplicable how the jury could have reached different verdicts on different charges. In our lawyer’s view, this was a situation where the jury ought to have been satisfied with one version or the other – that is, either the complainant’s version of events or the accused’s version of events as given in their record of interview.

What was the result?

An appeal against conviction was prepared arguing that the verdicts were ‘inconsistent’ having regard to the evidence in the trial, and the directions of law the jury received. This required the Court of Appeal to be satisfied that no reasonable jury, which had applied its mind properly to the facts and issues of the case, could have arrived at the conclusion reflected by those verdicts. That is, that the verdicts were an afront to logic. At the appeal, the prosecution argued that the verdicts could be explained.

The appeal was ultimately determined in 2025. The court determined that the verdicts were inconsistent and granted the appeal. As a result of the finding that the verdicts of guilty were inconsistent with the remaining verdicts of not guilty, the court entered new verdicts of not guilty on all charges.
Our client who had been remanded in custody following their trial was released from custody that day. They were free after a lengthy period in custody. This was a favorable outcome in the circumstances.

This case demonstrates the importance of having a clear knowledge of the evidence, the law and how these fit together properly. While it is always regrettable when a verdict is invalidly rendered, and particularly in this case where there had been incredible delay in reaching trial stage, the Court of Appeal was able to rectify the outcome on this occasion.

Holly Boylan

DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 01/08/2025