R v A
Case
•
[1997] QCA 237
•8 August 1997
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v A [1997] QCA 237
[1997] QCA 237
8 August 1997
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, A, was convicted in the District Court at Ipswich of three counts of rape, one count of assault with intent to commit rape, and one count of indecent dealing. The complainant was the appellant's stepdaughter, J, who was born on 15 January 1973. The first count of rape was alleged to have occurred in 1983 when J was aged ten, and the other four counts were alleged to have occurred between 1 January 1987 and 31 December 1988 when J was approximately fourteen. The appellant appeals against conviction, and seeks leave to appeal against sentence.
The court considered several grounds of appeal, including whether the trial judge erred in refusing a permanent stay of the indictment due to the delay between the alleged offences and the trial, and whether the trial judge erred in limiting the scope of cross-examination of the complainant. The court found that the delay did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial, and that the proposed cross-examination was not relevant to the issues in the trial. The court also considered whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory due to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, but found that the inconsistencies did not undermine the reliability of her evidence.
The court also considered the appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence, which was a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for each of the rape counts, and 3 years' imprisonment for the other two charges, all sentences to be served concurrently. The court found that the sentences imposed were well within the range and were not manifestly excessive.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The appellant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.
The court considered several grounds of appeal, including whether the trial judge erred in refusing a permanent stay of the indictment due to the delay between the alleged offences and the trial, and whether the trial judge erred in limiting the scope of cross-examination of the complainant. The court found that the delay did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial, and that the proposed cross-examination was not relevant to the issues in the trial. The court also considered whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory due to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, but found that the inconsistencies did not undermine the reliability of her evidence.
The court also considered the appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence, which was a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for each of the rape counts, and 3 years' imprisonment for the other two charges, all sentences to be served concurrently. The court found that the sentences imposed were well within the range and were not manifestly excessive.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The appellant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Criminal Liability
-
Causation
-
Negligence
-
Judicial Review
-
Corroboration
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v A [1997] QCA 237
Most Recent Citation
R v B [2004] QCA 182
Cases Citing This Decision
6
R v B
[2004] QCA 182
R v Myers
[2002] QCA 143
R v Delgado-Guerra
[2001] QCA 266
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0