Paton, R.C. v The Queen - [1992] FCA 520

Re: ROBERT CLAUDE PATON
And: THE QUEEN
No. A G11 of 1992
FED No. 520
Criminal Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Wilcox(1), Miles(1) and Von Doussa(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law - appeal against convictions on seven counts alleging sexual offences against a person under the age of ten years - whether the verdicts of guilty were unsafe or unsatisfactory - function of a Court of Criminal Appeal to assess the sufficiency and quality of all the evidence led both by the Crown and by the defence - whether verdicts were unreasonable because they were inconsistent with a verdict of acquittal on a further count.

Cases applied:

Chamberlain and Another v The Queen (1983-1984) 153 CLR 521 Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454

The Queen v Gledhill (1988) 144 LSJS 98

The Queen v Kelly (1985) 38 SASR 561

HEARING

CANBERRA

#DATE 22:7:1992

Counsel for the appellant: Mr S.H. Pilkinton

Solicitor for the appellant: Porter Pilkinton

Counsel for the respondent: Mr J.C. Ibbotson

Solicitor for the respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

The appellant was tried by judge and jury in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on an indictment alleging eight sexual offences against a person under the age of ten years. The complainant was his grand-daughter then aged eight years of age. The first, third, fourth, fifth and seventh counts allege that the appellant committed an act of indecency, involving the touching by the appellant with his finger of the genitalia of the complainant. The remaining counts allege that the appellant engaged in sexual intercourse, constituted by an act of cunnilingus. The jury brought in verdicts of guilty on all but the fourth count where the verdict was not guilty.

Grounds 1, 2, and 4 in the notice of appeal may be taken together as they compendiously contend that the verdicts of guilty were unsafe or unsatisfactory. Ground 3 of the notice of appeal alleges that the verdicts of guilty should be set aside on the ground that they are unreasonable as it was illogical and inconsistent for the jury on the evidence before it to acquit the appellant on count four but to find him guilty on the other counts, and in particular on the fifth and sixth counts which alleged offences on the same night as the fourth count.
The Crown case was that acts alleged formed part of a course of conduct by the appellant which extended over a period of several months, commencing early in 1989 and continuing until about 5 January 1990 when the girl complained to her mother. Her complaints were then reported to the Sexual Assault Unit of the Australian Federal Police in Canberra, and the complainant provided a long statement to the police on 16 and 17 January 1990.
The…

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 Paton, R.C. v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Paton, R.C. v The Queen [1992] FCA 520
Case: [1992] FCA 520
Decision Date: 22 JULY 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Paton, appealed against convictions on seven counts relating to sexual offences against a child under the age of ten years. The decision was made by the High Court of Australia. The central issue for the court was whether the verdicts of guilty were safe and satisfactory, considering the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence. Additionally, the court had to determine if the verdicts were unreasonable due to their inconsistency with an acquittal on a related count.

The court noted that in criminal appeals, the function of a Court of Criminal Appeal is to evaluate the sufficiency and quality of all the evidence, including both the Crown's case and the defence's presentation. The court assessed the evidence and found that the jury was entitled to find the appellant guilty on the seven counts based on the evidence presented. The court held that the verdicts were not unreasonable and were consistent with the evidence, despite the acquittal on another count. The jury's decision was deemed to be within their authority, and the appeal was dismissed.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the convictions. The appellant's argument that the verdicts were unsafe or unsatisfactory was rejected by the court. The court confirmed that the jury's verdicts were based on the evidence and were not unreasonable. The court's decision was final, and the convictions stood as determined by the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.