G J v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 275

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0261

G J	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NEAVE, REDLICH JJA and WILLIAMS AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	1 November 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	16 November 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 275
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v [GJ] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Mullaly, 27 September 2011) (conviction)

---

CRIMINAL LAW − Appeal against conviction − Incest − Indecent act with person under the age of 16 − Offences committed against daughter of de facto partner − Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory − Whether conviction on some charges logically inconsistent with acquittal on other charges − Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J McLoughlin	Mr G Thomas
For the Crown	Mr P B Kidd S.C. with Mr G Barr	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NEAVE JA:

The appellant, GJ, appeals (with leave) against his conviction in the County Court of one charge of incest (charge 2) and two charges of an indecent act with C, a child under 16 who was the daughter of his de facto partner (charges 1 and 3).

GJ was initially indicted on seven charges of sexual offences against C. Because C was uncertain about whether she was 15 or 16 when the alleged indecent acts covered by charges 6 and 7 occurred, the judge entered a verdict of acquittal on these charges, following a no-case submission. The jury acquitted the appellant of charges 4 and 5, which alleged that he had committed indecent acts against C, when she was approximately 13 years old.

On 4 April 2012, the appellant was granted leave to appeal against his convictions on the following ground:[1]

The verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
Particulars:
(a)The verdicts on Counts 4 and 5 demonstrated that at least for those allegations the jury entertained a reasonable doubt about her credit and or her reliability.
(b)It is submitted that an analysis of her evidence ought to compel this Court to the view that it does not suffice to prove guilt on Counts 1-3.
(c)A reasonable doubt that is entertained by this Court is ordinarily a reasonable doubt that ought to have been entertained by the jury. M v The Queen.
(d)The best that can be said of the complainant’s evidence on Counts 1-3 is that it was prone to have resulted in a compromised verdict. In short it is submitted that the verdicts are unsafe and unsatisfactory and should be set aside.
[1]The appellant was refused leave to appeal against conviction on two other grounds and refused leave to appeal against sentence.

Circumstances of the offending

In 1997, the appellant met the complainant’s mother, who had four sons and one daughter (the complainant). He moved into their family home in 1999 when the complainant was around eight or nine years old.

The offences which are the subject of this appeal allegedly occurred on two separate occasions some time between June 2002 and 2003.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading G J v The Queen

Details

AGLC: G J v The Queen [2012] VSCA 275
Case: [2012] VSCA 275
Decision Date: 16 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of G J v The Queen involves an appeal by the defendant against his conviction for multiple charges of incest and indecent acts committed against his de facto partner’s daughter. The defendant was convicted following a trial in the County Court of Victoria, and the matter was brought before the Court of Appeal. The crux of the appeal was whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and if the conviction on certain charges was logically inconsistent with the acquittal on others.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were the coherence of the verdict and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. The court was tasked with determining if the jury’s decision, as a whole, was just and rational given the evidence presented. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant’s conviction on some charges rendered the acquittal on others illogical. This involved a careful analysis of the evidence and the jury’s reasoning in reaching its verdict.

In examining the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the jury’s verdict was not only safe and satisfactory but also rationally consistent. The court held that the evidence, when considered in its entirety, was sufficient to support the convictions. The jury had been properly directed and had followed the evidence in reaching its decision. The court rejected the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the verdict. The reasoning was that the jury had the opportunity to consider all the evidence and was entitled to draw the inferences it did, even if some acquittals seemed inconsistent with certain convictions when viewed in isolation.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal. The defendant's convictions for the charged offences were upheld, and the trial verdict remained intact.

Orders