PB -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 183

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 183
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:177/2002	Heard:	19 MAY 2003
Coram:	MURRAY J PARKER J MCLURE J	Delivered:	15/08/03
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PB THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Verdicts of jury Whether unreasonable Prior inconsistent statements by complainant Whether significant possibility innocent person convicted Whether verdicts inconsistent with failure to reach verdict on some counts
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 689(1) Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 106R, s 106T(2)
Case References:	Hoy & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275 KBT v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 417 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 McComish v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980529; 16 September 1998 MFA v The Queen (2002) 77 ALJR 139 Narkle v The Queen (2001) 23 WAR 468 Polidano v The Queen [2003] WASCA 93 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 Salmon v The Queen [2001] WASCA 270

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : PB -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 183 CORAM : MURRAY J

PARKER J

MCLURE J

HEARD : 19 MAY 2003 DELIVERED : 15 AUGUST 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 177 of 2002 BETWEEN : PB

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Verdicts of jury - Whether unreasonable - Prior inconsistent statements by complainant - Whether significant possibility innocent person convicted - Whether verdicts inconsistent with failure to reach verdict on some counts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 689(1)

Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 106R, s 106T(2)

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S A Walker

Respondent : Mr S E Stone

Solicitors:

Appellant : Maughan & Leach

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Hoy & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275
KBT v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 417
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
McComish v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980529; 16 September 1998
MFA v The Queen (2002) 77 ALJR 139
Narkle v The Queen (2001) 23 WAR 468
Polidano v The Queen [2003] WASCA 93

Case(s) also cited:

Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Salmon v The Queen [2001] WASCA 270

(Page 3)

1 MURRAY J: I have had access, in draft, to the reasons now published by McLure J. They express my views and there is little that I wish to add.

2 It is clear that the ground of appeal relies upon that part of the Criminal Code, s 689(1), which provides that the Court of Criminal Appeal is to allow an appeal against conviction "if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or…

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 PB v The Queen

Details

AGLC: PB v The Queen [2003] WASCA 183
Case: [2003] WASCA 183
Decision Date: 15 AUGUST 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and two counts of aggravated sexual assault in company, and was sentenced to imprisonment. The basis for the convictions was the evidence of the complainant, who was the appellant’s former partner. The complainant gave evidence of a number of sexual encounters with the appellant, but denied having consensual sex with him on the occasions that gave rise to the charges. The appellant did not give evidence. The jury was unable to reach verdicts on two counts of aggravated sexual assault in company, but convicted the appellant of the remaining counts. The appellant appealed against his convictions, arguing that the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable and that there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted. The appeal hinged on the probative value of the complainant’s prior inconsistent statements, and whether the verdicts were inconsistent with the jury’s failure to reach verdicts on some counts.

The court considered whether the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable, having regard to the entire case, including the probative value of the complainant’s prior inconsistent statements. The court noted that the complainant had been subjected to a rigorous and searching cross-examination, which was designed to expose her as a liar. The court also considered the complainant’s demeanour, which was described as calm, consistent and forthright. The court concluded that the jury’s verdicts were not unreasonable, and that the probative value of the complainant’s prior inconsistent statements did not undermine the safety of the convictions. The court further held that the failure of the jury to reach verdicts on some counts did not render the verdicts on other counts unreasonable.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions. The jury’s verdicts were based on the evidence and the directions given by the trial judge. The complainant’s evidence, including her prior inconsistent statements, was probative and sufficient to support the verdicts. The court was satisfied that the jury had considered the evidence carefully and had reached a verdict on each count that it could reasonably do so. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.