Legal Research
Cases
Hudson (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Hudson (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 122 29 May 2017

Appeal

Conviction

Causation

Admissibility of Evidence

Sentencing

Totality Principle

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0136

ARTHUR HUDSON (A PSEUDONYM)	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	ASHLEY, BEACH and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 May 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 May 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 122
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v [Hudson] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 21 June 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Rape – Unreliable evidence – Evidence the reliability of which may be affected by ill-health or drug issues – Whether evidence of complainant was evidence of a kind that may be unreliable – Whether judge should have given direction that complainant’s evidence was evidence of a kind that may be unreliable – Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 12, 14, 31 and 32 – Appeal against conviction of rape allowed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Rape – Whether guilty verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence – Verdict not unreasonable or unsupportable by the evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Indecent assault (3 charges) – Total effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months – Earlier sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment with 15 months wholly suspended for 3 other offences of indecent assault – Plea of guilty – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Delay – Totality – Whether sentence infringed totality principle in light of earlier sentence – Not reasonably arguable that totality principle infringed – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Not reasonably arguable that sentence manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T Kassimatis QC with Ms A Burchill	Galbally & O’Bryan
For the Respondent	Mr D A Trapnell QC with Mr M D Stanton	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA

KAYE JA
BEACH JA:

On 27 April 2016, following a four-day trial in the County Court, the applicant was convicted of one charge of rape. The applicant had previously (on 10 April 2015) pleaded guilty to three charges of indecent assault on a separate indictment. On 21 June 2016, following a plea hearing held in respect of all four charges, the applicant was sentenced as follows:

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
Indictment No E13123877 (Trial)
1	Rape [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 45]	10 years’ imprisonment	6 years’ imprisonment
Indictment No C1510133 (Guilty plea)
1	Indecent assault [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 44]	5 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	6 months
2	Indecent assault [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 39]	10 years’ imprisonment	2 years’ imprisonment	12 months
3	Indecent assault [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 39]	10 years’ imprisonment	2 years’ imprisonment	Base
Cumulation between indictments		2 years and 6 months on Indictment C1510133 upon the sentence on Indictment E13123877
Total Effective Sentence on both indictments		8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		5 years and 9 months’ imprisonment
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		55 days
Other orders: Sentenced…

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 Hudson (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hudson (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2017] VSCA 122
Case: [2017] VSCA 122
Decision Date: 29 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hudson v The Queen, the High Court considered the conviction and sentence of the appellant, referred to as Hudson, on charges of rape and indecent assault. The court was tasked with examining the reliability of the complainant’s evidence, given Hudson’s argument that it may have been affected by her ill-health and drug issues. Additionally, the court reviewed the sentence imposed, which was a total effective sentence of three years and six months, in the context of an earlier sentence for other offences of indecent assault.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge should have directed the jury that the complainant's evidence was of a kind that may be unreliable, as provided for in the Jury Directions Act 2015. The court also examined whether the guilty verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, and whether the sentence imposed infringed the totality principle or was manifestly excessive. The court determined that the trial judge did not err in not directing the jury about the potential unreliability of the complainant’s evidence. Furthermore, the guilty verdict was found to be reasonable and supported by the evidence, and the sentence did not infringe the totality principle nor was it manifestly excessive.

The High Court found that Hudson's conviction for rape was upheld, as the evidence was reliable and the verdict was reasonable. However, the court allowed the appeal against Hudson’s conviction for one count of indecent assault due to a procedural error in the trial. The court also dismissed Hudson’s application for leave to appeal against the sentence, concluding that the sentence did not infringe the totality principle or was manifestly excessive. Consequently, Hudson’s convictions and sentences were affirmed with the exception of one count of indecent assault, for which the conviction was quashed.

Orders