Legal Research
Cases
King v The Queen

King v The Queen

Case [2014] VSCA 107 3 June 2014

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0140

PETER JOHN KING
	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN
	Respondent

---

JUDGES	REDLICH and WEINBERG JJA and SIFRIS AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	20 March 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT	3 June 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2014] VSCA 107
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v King (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Stuart, 3 December 2012 (Conviction)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Application for leave to appeal – Applicant convicted of five charges of indecent act with or in presence of JL, a child under 16 (charges 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6), one charge of threat to inflict serious injury relating to HL (charge 8) and two charges of sexual penetration of BL, a child under 16 (charges 12 and 13) – Applicant acquitted of five further charges – Whether verdicts with respect to each complainant inconsistent or unsafe and unsatisfactory – Verdicts regarding JL and HL neither inconsistent nor unsafe and unsatisfactory – Evidence of BL fraught with internal inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities – Jury verdicts on charges relating to BL not reasonably open on the evidence – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Convictions relating to BL on charges 12 and 13 set aside – Verdicts of acquittal entered on those charges.

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Cross-admissibility of BL’s evidence in relation to charges involving JL and HL – Effect on charges 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of allowing appeal in relation to charges 12 and 13 – Convictions on charges 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 set aside – Retrial ordered.

---

APPEARANCES:	COUNSEL	SOLICITORS
For the Applicant	Mr A D Trood	Buller McLeod Pty
For the Crown	Mr C T Carr	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA:

I agree with Weinberg JA.

WEINBERG JA:

The applicant stood trial in the County Court at Melbourne charged with 13 separate offences involving three separate victims. He was convicted, in December 2012, of five charges of indecent act with or in the presence of JL, a child under 16 (charges 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6), one charge of threat to inflict serious injury upon HL (charge 8), and two charges of sexual penetration of BL, a child under 16 (charges 12 and 13). He was acquitted of the remaining five charges.

The following table sets out the details of each charge, the jury’s verdict, and the sentence imposed:

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 (JL) Indecent act with child under 16
[Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 47(1)] 10 years
[Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 47(1)] 18 months 3 months

2 (JL) Indecent act with child under 16 10 years Not guilty N/A

3 (JL) Indecent act with child under 16 10 years 18 months 3 months

4 (JL) Indecent act with child under 16 10 years 18 months 3 months

5 (JL) Indecent act with child under 16 10 years 18 months 3 months

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 King v The Queen

Details

AGLC: King v The Queen [2014] VSCA 107
Case: [2014] VSCA 107
Decision Date: 3 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, King, was convicted of multiple serious offences including indecent acts with or in the presence of children under 16 years old and threats to inflict serious injury. He was acquitted of additional charges. King applied for leave to appeal against his convictions, arguing that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent or unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for each complainant and the consistency of the verdicts.

The legal issues before the court involved the consistency and safety of the jury's verdicts for each complainant and the admissibility of evidence. Specifically, the court examined whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for each complainant and whether the verdicts regarding certain charges were inconsistent or unsafe. The court also considered the effect of the appeal on the cross-admissibility of evidence and the implications for the charges involving different complainants.

The court found that the evidence regarding one complainant, BL, was fraught with internal inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities, rendering the jury's verdicts on charges related to BL not reasonably open on the evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions relating to BL. For the other complainants, JL and HL, the court found that the verdicts were neither inconsistent nor unsafe and unsatisfactory. However, the court determined that allowing the appeal in relation to BL necessitated a reevaluation of the cross-admissible evidence, leading to the conclusion that the convictions on all charges should be set aside and a retrial ordered.

The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal in part, set aside the convictions relating to BL, and ordered a retrial for all charges. Verdicts of acquittal were entered on the charges relating to BL.

Orders