On 12 June 2024, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal handed down it’s judgement in the Jarryd Hayne conviction appeal. The 500-paragraph judgement of the three Justices deal with the 3 grounds of appeal advanced by Mr Hayne.
In this blog, Criminal Lawyers Blacktown | AMA Legal summarise the appeal judgement and what lays ahead for Mr Hayne.
Background
This judgement was a conviction appeal from Mr Hayne’s third trial where he was convicted of 2 counts of sexual intercourse without consent being cunnilingus and digital penetration arising from the encounter between 9:07pm and 9:53pm on 30 September 2018 at the Complainant’s home.
The first trial took place in 2020, resulting in a hung jury. A second trial in March 2021 concluded with Mr. Hayne being found guilty. Mr. Hayne successfully appealed those convictions which led to the third trial.
The third trial commenced in March 2023. The third trial focused on two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The complainant’s evidence was largely presented through an audio-visual recording of her evidence from the first trial, supplemented with additional evidence and cross examination about a civil claim she had filed against Mr. Hayne.
The Complainant’s evidence was that the encounter was not consensual where Mr Hayne has always maintained and gave evidence that the encounter was consensual.
In April 2023, the jury found Mr. Hayne guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to 4 years and 9 months in prison, with a non-parole period of 3 years.
Grounds of Appeal
Mr Hayne legal team was led by one of the most prominent Criminal law Senior Counsels in Australia, Mr Tim Game SC, who advanced the following three grounds of appeal:
- the jury verdicts of guilty were unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence,
- the trial judge erred in determining that the complainant was not compellable to give further evidence about her interactions with Monique Smiles and Stephen Page, and
- a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the trial judge’s ruling refusing to compel the complainant to give further evidence about her interactions with Monique Smiles.
Ground 1
This ground challenged the findings of the jury which if successful would have led to verdicts of acquittal. Mr Hayne argued that the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable, asserting that the complainant’s version of events was inconsistent and did not adequately account for the timeline of Mr. Hayne’s presence at her house. Mr Hayne also highlighted discrepancies in the complainant’s accounts to others about the incident.
Justice Meagher and Justice Rothman dismissed this ground of appeal, but Justice Sweeney upheld this ground in the minority and ordered Mr Hayne to be acquitted stating:
“I am of the view there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted. Therefore, I am of the view that the verdicts of guilty are unreasonable.”
Grounds 2 and 3 of the appeal challenged the trial judge’s rulings in the conduct of the third trial.
Ground 2
Mr Hayne argued that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the Complainant to be recalled to give further evidence about her interactions with Ms. Smiles and Mr. Page after the encounter.
Justice Meagher dismissed this ground of appeal, but Justice Rothman and Justice Sweeney upheld this ground of appeal.
Ground 3
The appellant contended that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the complainant to be recalled to give further evidence about her interactions with Ms. Smiles and that amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Justice Meagher dismissed this ground of appeal whereas Justices Rothman and Justice Sweeney upheld this ground and ordered that there be a retrial.
The decision on whether there will be a retrial is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and it is not a matter for the Court to decide, however Justice Sweeney made the following remarks about a possible fourth retrial:
“I am of the view that in the circumstances of the history of this matter, to put the applicant [Mr Hayne] on trial for a fourth time would not be in the interests of justice. I appreciate that is a decision for the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
According to Criminal Lawyers Blacktown | AMA Legal, the Director of Public Prosecutions have prosecution guidelines which guide the decision as to whether there should be a retrial. Legal pundits have opined that it is more likely than not that there will be a retrial in this matter while other have called for jury trial in sexual assault matters to be removed.
If you have a criminal matter that you wish to discuss, it’s advisable to search for a criminal lawyer near me or you can contact Blacktown Criminal Lawyers | AMA Legal on (02) 8610 3764.
