Jonah Woodley (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen - [2019] VSCA 32

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0087

JONAH WOODLEY (a pseudonym)[1]	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, KYROU and NIALL JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 December 2018
DATE OF ORDERS:	20 December 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 February 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 32
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v [Woodley] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Meredith, 29 January 2018)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Incest, indecent act with child under 16 – Allegations of violence – Denial in record of interview – Forensic decision by trial counsel to suggest violence as motive to lie – Evidence of violence not challenged – Jury invited to accept evidence of violence – Strategy not available given denial of violence – Forensic disadvantages of leaving evidence unchallenged – Substantial miscarriage of justice – Appeal allowed – Retrial ordered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D A Dann QC with Ms C A Boston	Furstenberg Law
For the Respondent	Ms S Flynn QC with Mr B L Sonnet	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
KYROU JA
NIALL JA:

Summary

The applicant was found guilty by a County Court jury of two charges of incest and four charges of indecent act with a child under 16. He was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.

He sought leave to appeal against conviction on several grounds. In the event, the only ground of appeal which was argued was that alleging a substantial miscarriage of justice, by reason that:

the course adopted by trial counsel was inconsistent with the instructions of the applicant, in that:
(a)the allegations of violence made against the applicant were not challenged;
(b)the jury were invited to accept that the violence taking place in the house would serve to be a very powerful factor to lie as regards the allegations of sexual offending; and
(c)the applicant had maintained his denial of the allegations of violence.

In accordance with the practice described by this Court in Knowles (a pseudonym) v The Queen,[2] the applicant’s trial counsel was given notice of the criticism of his conduct of the trial and invited to consider whether he wished to say anything in response. Counsel initially said that he felt constrained by legal professional privilege but, once it was clarified that the applicant waived privilege, counsel filed an affidavit and was then cross-examined in this Court.
[2][2015] VSCA 141 [144]–[147].

After reserving our decision for several days, we informed the parties of our conclusion that this ground of appeal should be upheld, the appeal allowed and the convictions quashed. We ordered that there be a re-trial. We said that we would publish…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jonah Woodley (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] VSCA 32
Decision Date: 22 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, Jonah Woodley, identified under a pseudonym, appealed against his conviction for incest and indecent acts with a child under 16 years of age. The decision was handed down by the court of appeal. The primary concern in this appeal was the strategy adopted by the trial counsel during the proceedings. Specifically, the counsel suggested that the reason for the complainant's denial in her recorded interview was the violence she had allegedly experienced. However, the complainant did not assert that she had been subjected to any violence. The trial counsel's strategy thus placed the appellant in a compromised position, as the denial of violence could not be effectively challenged. The court found that this approach not only undermined the appellant's defence but also potentially led the jury to accept the evidence of violence without proper scrutiny. This strategic misstep was deemed to have created significant legal disadvantages for the appellant.

The court examined the implications of the trial counsel's decision to leave unchallenged the evidence of violence. By not contesting this evidence, the appellant was unable to fully explore the reasons behind the complainant's denial in the recorded interview. The court held that this oversight constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, as it compromised the appellant's ability to mount a robust defence. The court further found that the trial counsel's strategy, which invited the jury to accept the evidence of violence without proper challenge, was flawed and prejudicial. Given these findings, the appeal was allowed, and a retrial was ordered to address the substantial miscarriage of justice that occurred during the original trial.

The court's decision highlighted the critical importance of strategic choices in criminal trials. The trial counsel's decision to suggest that the complainant's denial was due to alleged violence, without substantiating evidence or proper challenge, was found to have unfairly prejudiced the appellant. The court emphasised that such strategic errors can significantly impact the fairness of the trial and the integrity of the judicial process. The appeal court's ruling underscores the necessity for careful and considered strategic decisions in criminal proceedings to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected and that the trial is conducted fairly. The court's allowance of the appeal and the ordering of a retrial reflect its commitment to upholding the principles of justice and ensuring that all parties receive a fair trial.

Orders