R v AAA - [2007] QCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v AAA [2007] QCA 92

PARTIES:

R
v
AAA
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 319 of 2006
DC No 187 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 March 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE AND INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – where appellant charged with various sexual offences committed against his step-daughter – where jury convicted on some counts and acquitted on others – whether verdicts were inconsistent or unreasonable

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A

Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606, applied

COUNSEL:

P T Cullinane for the appellant
R J Pointing for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ms Kelly & Co for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

The learned trial judge informed the jury of the difficulties consequential upon the delay in the making of the complaint: Longman v The Queen.[1] His Honour also warned the jury that, because of this type of delay, it can be dangerous to convict on a complainant's testimony alone unless, after scrutinising it with great care and considering all the circumstances relevant to its evaluation and paying heed to the risks consequential upon the delay, they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of its truth and accuracy on each charge.
[1](1989) 168 CLR 79.

Jerrard JA has set out the relevant evidence. A review of that evidence demonstrates that the jury were entitled to reject the appellant's exculpatory evidence and to accept the complainant's evidence beyond reasonable doubt on counts 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and the alternative verdict of indecent dealing on count 11: MFA v The Queen.[2] The verdicts of acquittal on the remaining counts were not inconsistent with those guilty verdicts. I agree with Jerrard JA's reasons.
[2](2002) 213 CLR 606.

JERRARD JA: On 31 October 2006 Mr AAA was convicted after a trial of one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16 years, of six counts of unlawful and indecent treatment of a child under 12, and of two counts of rape. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for the offence of maintaining and the two counts of rape, and three years imprisonment on the other counts. The learned judge set a parole eligibility date of 30 April 2010. Mr AAA has appealed against his convictions, contending firstly those were both inconsistent with his acquittals on two other counts of allegedly unlawfully and…

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 R v AAA

Details

AGLC: R v AAA [2007] QCA 92
Case: [2007] QCA 92
Decision Date: 23 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v AAA, the appellant was charged with various sexual offences committed against his step-daughter. The case came before the court following the appellant’s appeal against his conviction. The appellant was convicted by a jury on some counts and acquitted on others. The appellant's primary contention was that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable, thereby warranting a new trial. The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdicts were so unreasonable that no reasonable jury could have arrived at such a conclusion based on the evidence presented.

The court examined the evidence and the jury's verdicts to assess whether they were inconsistent or unreasonable. The court noted that while the verdicts on different counts were varied, they were not necessarily inconsistent if viewed in the context of the evidence and the jury's perception of the credibility of witnesses. The court highlighted that the jury is entitled to weigh the evidence and decide the credibility of the witnesses, and their verdicts would not be disturbed unless they were palpably unreasonable. After a thorough review of the evidence and the jury's decision-making process, the court concluded that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable.

As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdicts. The court found that the jury's decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes based on the evidence presented. The court further emphasised that the jury's role in assessing witness credibility and determining the facts was to be respected, and the verdicts would not be overturned on appeal unless there was a clear miscarriage of justice. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original convictions and acquittals 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.

CITATION:	R v AAA [2007] QCA 92
PARTIES:	R v AAA (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 319 of 2006 DC No 187 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	23 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 March 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE AND INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – where appellant charged with various sexual offences committed against his step-daughter – where jury convicted on some counts and acquitted on others – whether verdicts were inconsistent or unreasonable Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79, cited MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606, applied
COUNSEL:	P T Cullinane for the appellant R J Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ms Kelly & Co for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent