Huges v The Queen - [2013] VSCA 338

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0271

ARTHUR HUGES (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification of the victims of the sexual offending, this judgment has bee anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant.

---

JUDGES	PRIEST and COGHLAN JJA and LASRY AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	21 November 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	28 November 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 338
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v [Arthur Huges] (Judge Howard, County Court of Victoria at Melbourne)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – Appellant convicted of sexual offending against two natural daughters – Whether appellant led evidence of good character - Whether the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to adduce evidence of bad character through cross-examination and in rebuttal – Appeal allowed – Convictions quashed and retrial ordered.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J E McLoughlin	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr C B Boyce	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA:

Introduction

On the completion of oral argument on 21 November 2013, the Court granted the appellant leave to appeal against conviction on the first ground of appeal; allowed the appeal; quashed the convictions and sentences that had been imposed; and ordered a retrial. The Court indicated that it would later provide reasons for those orders.

These are my reasons for joining in those orders.

Convictions and grounds of appeal

Following a trial in the County Court, on 25 June 2010 a jury found the appellant guilty of 17 charges of sexual offending – including incest, indecent assault, gross indecency and similar – against his biological daughters KJ and LJ. The jury found him not guilty of four other charges, and could not reach verdicts on a further two charges. On 6 September 2010 the trial judge sentenced him to a total effective sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment upon which was fixed a non-parole period of eight years’ imprisonment.

The appellant sought leave to appeal against his conviction on four grounds. Following the Court’s indication that it was minded to allow the appeal on the first ground, the other grounds were abandoned. Ground 1 was expressed as follows:

1.The learned trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to introduce cross-examination of the applicant and in rebuttal:
(a)evidence that the applicant assaulted and raped the complainant when the family lived in the USA;
(b)evidence that the applicant had assaulted KJ during an argument immediately before he and his wife separated;
(c)evidence that KJ had been constantly in fear of assault by the applicant;
(d)evidence of pornographic material having been downloaded to the applicant’s computer.

Overview of the evidence

The appellant was born on 8 February 1946. His two daughters, KJ and LJ, were born respectively on 8 January 1979 and 17 April 1980. The offences were alleged to have occurred between 1984 and 1995, when the appellant…

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 Huges v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Huges v The Queen [2013] VSCA 338
Case: [2013] VSCA 338
Decision Date: 28 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Huges, appealed against his conviction for sexual offences against his two natural daughters. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central dispute was whether the trial judge correctly allowed the Crown to present evidence of the appellant’s bad character through cross-examination and in rebuttal, particularly when the appellant had not led evidence of his good character.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to elicit evidence of the appellant’s bad character in a manner that was prejudicial and beyond what was necessary for the jury to understand the context of the case. The court also needed to examine if the trial judge's decision to allow such evidence was in line with established legal principles regarding the admissibility of character evidence in criminal trials.

In ruling on the appeal, the court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in allowing the Crown to present such evidence. The court held that the evidence of bad character was not only prejudicial but also not necessary for the jury to understand the context or relevance to the charges. The court further held that the trial judge should have exercised more control over the scope of cross-examination and the admissibility of rebuttal evidence, particularly when the defence did not lead evidence of the appellant’s good character. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a retrial was ordered.

Orders