Gregory Francis Browne v The King - [2024] VSCA 194

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0084

GREGORY FRANCIS BROWNE	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, TAYLOR and BOYCE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 September 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 September 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 194
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Browne (Unreported, 20 October 2023, County Court of Victoria, Judge Doyle)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Rape and associated offences – Defence counsel failed to adduce evidence of good character – Defence counsel failed to request a ‘good character’ direction – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice occurred – Appeal allowed – New trial ordered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr T Kassimatis KC and Mr CK Wareham
Respondent:		Mr JCJ McWilliams
Solicitors
Applicant:	Le Brun & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

THE COURT:

On 20 October 2023, a jury empanelled in the County Court to try him found the applicant guilty of rape (three charges – charges 1, 2 and 5); recklessly causing injury (one charge – charge 4); and common assault (two charges – charges 6 and 7). Subsequently, on 29 February 2024, the judge sentenced him to a lengthy term of imprisonment.[1]
[1]See DPP v Browne [2024] VCC 266 (Judge Doyle).
By a notice filed on 14 May 2024,[2] the applicant seeks leave to appeal on five grounds, the first of which is formulated as follows:
1A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because defence counsel:
(a)failed to adduce evidence of the applicant’s good character and did not request from the judge a ‘good character’ direction; and
(b)introduced into evidence at the trial evidence of bad character.
[2]The Registrar granted an extension of time within which to file the notice on 30 August 2024.
The respondent has fairly conceded that this ground should succeed and that there should be a new trial.
We consider the respondent’s concession to have been properly made. As a result, we will grant leave to appeal against conviction on the first ground; allow the appeal; set aside the convictions; and order a new trial. In those circumstances, it is unnecessary to determine the other grounds.[3]
[3]Those grounds were:
2A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because the prosecutor submitted to the jury that ‘it [was] a sad fact that in general women are more likely to be raped by someone they know rather than a complete stranger’.
3A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because the prosecutor in her address without having challenged his truthfulness during her cross-examination of him.
4AA substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because defence counsel did not put to the prosecution witness, [AG] – as he had to the complainant – that:
(a)she was present when the applicant and the complainant argued because the applicant’s daughter, Sheraton, disclosed to him that the complainant had beaten her; and
(b)the argument between the applicant and the complainant (if she was able to say) was, in fact, the catalyst for the breakdown of their relationship.
4BA substantial miscarriage…

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 Gregory Francis Browne v The King

Details

AGLC: Browne v The King [2024] VSCA 194
Case: [2024] VSCA 194
Decision Date: 5 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Browne v The King involved a conviction for rape and associated offences. The appellant, Gregory Francis Browne, appealed against his conviction, arguing that his defence counsel's failure to adduce evidence of his good character and to request a ‘good character’ direction from the jury amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the failures of the defence counsel to adduce evidence of the appellant's good character and to request an appropriate direction to the jury constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appellant contended that these omissions significantly prejudiced his defence and warranted the setting aside of his conviction and the ordering of a new trial. The central question was whether these errors were so significant that they deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

The High Court found that the failures of the defence counsel were indeed substantial errors that prejudiced the appellant's defence. The court held that the omission to adduce evidence of good character and to request a ‘good character’ direction to the jury were significant enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice. These errors deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to have the jury consider his good character in the context of the credibility of the witnesses. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial for the appellant.

Orders