Copley v The Queen

Case [2000] FCA 994

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Copley v The Queen [2000] FCA 994

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against convictions for unlawful intercourse with a lineal descendant – whether jury’s verdicts unsafe or unsatisfactory – they were not.
CRIMINAL LAW – whether the verdicts of guilty on five counts were inconsistent with no verdict on one count – meaning of inconsistency.
CRIMINAL LAW – good character raised by the accused – entitlement of the Crown to call evidence in rebuttal – practice of checking with the Crown before character is raised.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 92L(2), 92L(3)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 164(1)

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
DPP v Kilbourne (1973) 1 All ER 440
R v Baskerville (1916) 2 KB 658
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
R v Stone (Devlin J, unreported, 13 December 1954)
The Queen v Hamilton (1993) 68 A Crim R 300
The Queen v Carbone (1976) 14 SASR 280
Verma (1987) 30 A Crim R 441

WILLIAM PAUL COPLEY v THE QUEEN

A 75 of 1999

GALLOP, SPENDER and MATHEWS JJ
CANBERRA
27 JULY 2000


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

 A 75 OF  1999

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM PAUL COPLEY
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

JUDGES:

GALLOP, SPENDER and MATHEWS JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

27 JULY 2000

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

  A 75 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM PAUL COPLEY
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

JUDGES:

GALLOP, SPENDER and MATHEWS JJ

DATE:

27 JULY 2000

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GALLOP J

  1. This is an appeal against convictions in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for four offences of unlawful intercourse with a lineal descendant under the age of 16 years contrary to s 92L(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and one offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a lineal descendant contrary to s 92L(3) of the Crimes Act 1900. The indictment included a further count also under s 92L(2) which was the fourth count in the indictment. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on the first, second, third, fifth and sixth counts. They were unable to reach a verdict on the fourth count and accordingly were discharged. Convictions on the jury’s verdicts were recorded by Higgins J on 3 September 1999.

  2. By a notice of appeal amended by leave, the appellant raised the following grounds:

    “1.The verdicts returned were against the weight of evidence and therefore unsupportable.

    2.The non return of a verdict on count 4 is inconsistent with the guilty verdicts on the other counts.

    3.His Honour erred in allowing evidence to be led by the Crown from Gregory Chalker…

Continue reading Copley v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Copley v The Queen [2000] FCA 994
Case
[2000] FCA 994
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Copley has appealed against his conviction and sentence for multiple counts of indecent assault against his daughter. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the appellant was guilty of the charges. The appellant argued that the evidence was not corroborated and that the victim and her mother had colluded to fabricate the allegations. The court considered the evidence presented, including the victim's and her mother's testimony, and whether it was corroborated by other evidence.

The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court held that the issue of collusion between the victim and her mother was a matter for the jury to decide and that the jury had found that the victim's evidence was credible. The court also found that the evidence of the victim leaving home and her subsequent contact with her father was relevant to her credibility as a witness and was a matter for the jury to consider. The court held that the appellant had not shown that the verdicts were unsafe or unsatisfactory.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the appellant had not shown that the verdicts were unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court found that the issue of collusion between the victim and her mother was a matter for the jury to decide and that the jury had found that the victim's evidence was credible. The court also held that the evidence of the victim leaving home and her subsequent contact with her father was relevant to her credibility as a witness and was a matter for the jury to consider.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I am not satisfied that the allegations were not corroborated. The evidence as it was could not, in my view, render the verdicts unsafe or unsatisfactory.There was evidence of collusion between the victim and her mother In amplification of this ground the appellant referred to the evidence of the victim and her mother that the appellant’s penis had unusual features. As a result of these statements, the Police had the appellant’s penis examined by a Police doctor. The appellant tendered in evidence a report from a doctor which contradicted the assertions of the victim and her mother. As they both gave common evidence contrary to the doctor’s opinion, the submission was that most probably the mother, having seen the appellant’s penis, had, for some reason, formed the opinion that it was unusual and had told the victim of it. There was a good deal of evidence on the subject at the trial apart from the evidence of the victim and her mother. There was evidence from Dr Czoban, the Police Surgeon, to the effect that he had made a physical examination of the appellant and was of the opinion that it appeared to him to be an ordinary circumcised penis. Dr Meiklejohn, a general practitioner, also examined the appellant and said that his penis had the appearance post-circumcision “one would normally expect from the procedure”. Whether there was collaboration or collusion between the victim and her mother was essentially a jury question and relevant to the reliability of their evidence. It is not appropriate to re-examine further their evidence on the subject. No ground has been shown to find that the verdicts of the jury were unsafe or unsatisfactory on the basis of their evidence on this particular subject.The circumstances of the victim leaving home and her subsequent contact with her father were inconsistent with the allegations It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the victim left home in 1993 following a fight between the victim and her mother in which she was punched by her mother. Reference was made to her evidence that she left because of the actions of the appellant and that she “was close to either killing myself or killing him”. The submission was that none of her actions with respect to the appellant up until she made her allegations, appeared to bear out this alleged hostility. She sent a number of letters and cards to the appellant expressed in affectionate terms, did not attempt to avoid his company and had him give her driving lessons. When questioned about this in cross-examination, her only explanation was that she did these things because she was frightened of the appellant. The submission was that her evidence was unconvincing in the extreme. This also, it seems to me, is no more than a jury question, all of which was relevant to her credibility as a witness. The respondent referred to other evidence about her leaving home, including her evidence that she left because of “the abuse, like the sexual abuse, physical abuse, just no privacy. I couldn’t take it any more”. She gave other evidence that she did not reject her father and continued to be apparently affectionate, but from afar. She did not want to hurt her mother and wanted to maintain family harmony. She felt that she had no choice. All of this was relevant to her credibility and were essentially matters for the jury.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.