Holland v The King - [2025] VSCA 5

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0168

KLAY EDWARD HOLLAND	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	TAYLOR, KAYE and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 January 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 February 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 5
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VSC 510 (Beale J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Rape – Insertion of barrel of imitation rifle into victim’s anus – Revenge for victim breaking into home and threatening occupants with a knife – Whether jury’s verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – Whether witnesses were so unreliable and lacking in credibility as to raise reasonable doubt – Appropriate jury directions given by the sentencing judge – Central witness evidence was supported by forensic and pathological evidence – Open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt – Leave to appeal refused.

Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 276(1)(a); Evidence Act 2008, ss 38, 128; Jury Directions Act 2015, s 32.

Hocking v Bell [1945] 71 CLR 430; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Paulson v The King [2024] VSCA 188; Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308, applied.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Ms M J Brown
Respondent:		Mr D Glynn with Mr J O’Connor
Solicitors
Applicant:	SLKQ Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TAYLOR JA
KAYE JA
T FORREST JA:

The applicant, Klay Holland, faced trial in the Supreme Court for a charge of manslaughter and a charge of rape. He was acquitted of manslaughter and convicted of rape. This application for leave to appeal contends that the rape verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory pursuant to s 276(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘the Act’).[1]
[1]Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 276(1)(a).
We have determined that the application for leave to appeal will be refused. What follows are our reasons for that determination.

Crown case — summary

In the evening of 15 March 2021, a number of people, including the deceased man Shane Cox engaged in a home invasion of a residential unit in Melton. This was a reputed drug trafficking venue. After a time, this group left the premises having apparently threatened a number of occupants and stolen a pet dog.
Later in the evening, Mr Cox returned to the unit, affected by methylamphetamine and armed with a knife. A number of people were present at the unit when he returned. He threatened one Matthew Fisher with a knife and commenced to rummage through the unit. The applicant used a baseball bat to subdue Mr Cox by striking him repeatedly with the bat. It must be borne steadily in mind that the applicant was acquitted of the manslaughter charge.
At some stage, Mr Cox was hogtied and he was detained for several hours. During this period of detention, the applicant raped Mr Cox by inserting…

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 Holland v The King

Details

AGLC: Holland v The King [2025] VSCA 5
Case: [2025] VSCA 5
Decision Date: 13 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Holland v The King, the appellant, Holland, appealed against his conviction for the rape of a victim, which included the insertion of the barrel of an imitation rifle into the victim’s anus. The appeal was based on the contention that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. The defence argued that the central witness was unreliable and lacked credibility, which should have raised a reasonable doubt. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and whether the central witness's testimony, combined with the lack of credibility, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. The appellant also contended that the jury directions given by the sentencing judge were inadequate and that the forensic and pathological evidence did not adequately support the witness's account.

The Supreme Court found that the jury’s verdict was open to them given the evidence presented. The court emphasised that the central witness's account, which was corroborated by forensic and pathological evidence, was sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the forensic pathologist's testimony, which included evidence of extensive injuries consistent with the account given by the witness, supported the conclusion that the crime as alleged had been committed. Furthermore, the court found that the jury directions were appropriate, and there was no error in the trial judge's handling of the case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

The final order of the court was to dismiss the appeal and refuse leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In re-examination, Ms Kerr said that the account she gave in examination in chief concerning what the applicant said he did with the gun was true.(4)Forensic evidence(a)Dr Yeliena Baber, Forensic Pathologist Dr Baber is a forensic pathologist employed by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. Dr Baber gave evidence of her autopsy findings in this matter. She outlined extensive injuries into the deceased’s brain, nose, cheekbones, eyes, temple, teeth, jaw, lips and neck. There were multiple underlying fractures including a fracture to the left temporal region and there was also evidence of extensive subarachnoid haemorrhaging, bilateral lateral frontotemporal contusions, swelling and a focal tear to the corpus callosum. This was evidence of substantial blunt-force trauma to the head. It is unnecessary to recite the further extensive injuries to Mr Cox’s body. Most were caused by the application of blunt-force trauma. Relevantly to this appeal, Dr Baber said there was a quite extensive fracture to the elbow with skin degloved at that site. It was a blunt-force injury that moved the skin and fractured the elbow. The following passage is recorded from Dr Baber’s evidence in chief:Moving away from the limbs, did you also examine the deceased’s anus?---Yes, I did.Can you tell us what you noticed there?---So initially, on external examination, there was dried blood around the anal region and the buttocks. And then, as part of the internal examination - - -Just stop there for a moment, if I can. Can I just get you — you said there was dry blood around the anus and both the buttocks?---Yes.Was there a small amount of dark blood around the anal verge?---Yes.Can you just explain to us what that is?---It’s your ring, basically, the sphincter. The anal verge between the rectum, which is the inside of your bum, and the anus, which is the outside. So that’s the anal verge.So there’s, effectively, blood there?---Yes, dried blood.And did you conduct an internal examination of the rectum?---Yes.Can you tell us what you did and what you found?---So when the bowel is taken out as part of the internal examination, it’s taken out probably just before the anal verge, so you don’t kind of make the body look too bad afterwards. So we don’t distort the sphincter itself. So taking out the rectum, there was bruising and tears to the lining, the mucosa of the rectum, at one point in particular, so on one side of it.So you opened the rectum; is that correct?---Correct.Did you observe a 3 by 3 centimetre area where you say the mucosa was disturbed?---Yes.Can you just explain to us when you say the mucosa is disturbed, what that actually means?---Okay. I’ll just briefly read what I said and then explain it. The mucosa has been stripped off from interior to superior. So that implies a direction of injury, so there are tags of damaged skin at the top but not at the bottom. So, effectively, it’s been scraped off from bottom to top and that was present, with bruising, in that 3 by 10 centimetre area.You said that it is indicative of from bottom to top?---Yes.Is that in terms of how the injury was sustained?---Yes.And when you refer to the bottom, are you referring to the entry?---Yes, towards the anal verge. I probably should have chosen a better word.Did you also observe patchy focal haemorrhage?---Yes, so patchy bleeding.Patchy bleeding?---Yes.What does that indicate to us?---That he was alive when this injury occurred.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.