R v Adcock

Case [2016] QCA 264

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Adcock [2016] QCA 264

PARTIES:

R
v
ADCOCK, Christopher John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 17 of 2016
DC No 103 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore – Date of Conviction: 13 January 2016

DELIVERED ON:

20 October 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 August 2016

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty, after trial, of one count of torture, one count of unlawful assault causing bodily harm and being armed with a weapon and in company with others, and one count of unlawfully detaining a person in a dwelling against their will – where the complainant was held captive in a unit, where she was tortured and assaulted over a period of 19 hours – where there were three co-offenders, one of which the complainant identified as the appellant – where the complainant in her first police interview did not identify the appellant – where in the complainant’s second police interview she identified the appellant after being prompted by a police officer – where the appellant contends that the verdict is unreasonable because the complainant could not clearly identify him – whether the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE EVIDENCE FROM DECEASED WITNESS – where a witness gave a statement to the police after the offences occurred, but died before the trial commenced – where, at trial, the appellant contended that the statement should not be admitted as evidence as it could not be tested in court, and nor was it reliable – where the learned trial judge admitted the statement into evidence – whether the learned trial judge’s discretion miscarried by allowing the statement to be admitted as evidence

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B, s 98, s 130

Dupas v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 237; [2010] HCA 20, cited
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72, cited
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414, [2000] HCA 15, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied
R v D (2003) 141 A Crim R 471; [2003] QCA 151, considered
R v FQ[2008] QCA 68, considered
R v Pearson[2015] QCA 157, cited
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, applied
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35, applied

COUNSEL:

Continue reading R v Adcock

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Adcock [2016] QCA 264
Case
[2016] QCA 264
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Adcock, the appellant, Mr Adcock, was found guilty of multiple serious offences, including torture, unlawful assault causing bodily harm, being armed with a weapon and in company with others, and unlawful detention. The complainant was held captive and subjected to torture and assault over a period of 19 hours. The central issue on appeal was the reliability of the complainant's identification of Mr Adcock as one of her assailants, given that she did not initially identify him during her first police interview but did so in her second interview after some prompting. Additionally, the appellant contested the admission of a statement from a deceased witness, arguing that it should not have been admitted due to its unreliability and the inability to cross-examine the witness.

The court examined the totality of the evidence and the reliability of the complainant's identification. It was noted that the complainant had a clear and detailed recollection of her ordeal, and her identification of Mr Adcock was consistent with other evidence. The court found that the complainant's initial failure to identify Mr Adcock did not undermine the reliability of her subsequent identification, especially considering the traumatic circumstances under which she was held. Regarding the deceased witness's statement, the court upheld the trial judge's discretion to admit the evidence, finding that the statement was reliable and relevant, and its exclusion would not have significantly affected the outcome of the trial.

The court concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsustainable given the evidence presented. The identification of Mr Adcock was deemed reliable, and the admission of the deceased witness's statement did not miscarry the trial judge's judicial discretion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The main evidence came from the complainant. The sole issue on appeal was put squarely as the identification of Mr Adcock by the complainant and by Mr Woodford. Therefore, in reviewing the evidence it is not necessary to fully traverse the complainant’s detention or the acts of violence towards her, as none were challenged at the trial or on appeal. Nor is it necessary to traverse the evidence of the complainant’s parents, whose involvement did not bring them into contact with her attackers. The following review will therefore focus on that issue. However, my review has gone beyond that, to the totality of the evidence before the jury.The complainant’s evidence The complainant was a 22 year-old mother of a five year-old boy. She suffered from type 1 diabetes which required treatment with insulin several times a day. If she could not get the insulin treatment she said would become “very unwell”.[6] She also suffered a hyperthyroid.[6]AB 93. She gave the following evidence:(a)she knew Ms Martin well, as social acquaintances for about a year;[7][7]AB 93, AB 114 lines 11-13.(b)she knew Jim (Mr Butler), as social acquaintances for about six months;[8][8]AB 93, 111.(c)on 6 August she met Mr Butler, who was with a man he introduced as “Chris”; the description the complainant used for Chris was “[m]edium build, short dark hair, a goatee, tattoos, in his 30’s”;[9][9]AB 93.(d)on 7 August she met Mr Butler at his unit complex, at about lunch time; as she entered the unit she saw Mr Butler and his partner, Shayenne, Ms Martin and Chris;[10] she drew a layout plan of the unit, Exhibit 2;[10]AB 93-94.(e)Chris followed her into the unit; Mr Butler was on the balcony and Ms Martin was sitting in the lounge; as she walked through the unit Ms Martin fell in behind her;[11][11]AB 96.(f)Ms Martin pushed her into a chair, punching her in the face multiple times; someone was taping her hands and legs, and yelling at her while she was crying; Ms Martin was in front of her and Chris was behind; Ms Martin pulled an instrument that looked like a torch out of her bag; it was a taser; she tasered the complainant on her chest, temples and body;[12][12]AB 96, 97.(g)Mr Butler asked them to stop, untied her and told her to go and wash herself; before and after untying the complainant he had been questioning her about another person called McLeod; Ms Martin punched during that questioning;[13][13]AB 98.(h)Chris was yelling and taunting her; he hit her a couple of times towards the end of the questioning;[14][14]AB 99.(i)once back from the bathroom, the complainant asked for some water; a bowl was put on the floor and she was told to drink it like a dog, which she did, on her hands and knees;[15](j)the complainant said that she would do anything if they would stop, and Mr Butler said she had to “suck his dick”, indicating Chris; Chris motioned towards his pants, then said “I wouldn’t want that slut near me anyway”;[16](k)Chris, Ms Martin and Mr Butler all said she was going to die, they were going to put her in the boot or in an empty fridge; a friend called on the complainant’s phone, and Chris said that if she said anything was happening she would die;[17](l)Mr Butler left with Shayenne, and said he wanted the complainant alive when he got back; Chris responded that he could not promise anything; in Mr Butler’s absence Chris continued to tell the complainant that she was going to die, and so were her family; the complainant was hit in the face if she cried or made a noise; Chris punched her and Ms Martin grabbed her around the throat, holding on till the complainant choked;[18](m)the complainant said “I was in a lot of pain, and scared, and tired. Just physically and emotionally, it was traumatic”; at that time she had not had any insulin;[19](n)she was given some tablets for pain; they were given by a young man who she did not know, and who was only there for a short time and not otherwise involved in what was done to her; the others later said the young man was Chris’ brother;[20](o)the complainant was given some food, but Chris asked if she was enjoying her last meal; the threats to kill her continued;[21](p)Mr Butler came and went again, but when he eventually returned he brought some food; at that time there was another man there for a short time; he was called “Bruce Woodward … or something like that”; she had met him before;[22](q)sometime before midnight the complainant went to sleep; she was woken by Chris; he and Ms Martin questioned her about the contacts listed in her phone, and made the complainant write down the numbers and names as “it could be like an insurance and they might let me go”; Ms Martin was looking for “Close family contacts and people that had money or possessions … Valuable possessions”;[23] and(r)at one point Ms Martin dragged a syringe, which she said contained OxyContin, down across the complainant’s face; “they were asking me if I wanted to be awake or asleep when they killed me”; Ms Martin also put a chord around the complainant’s neck, twisting and tightening it.[24][15]AB 99.[16]AB 99.[17]AB 100.[18]AB 100, 101.[19]AB 101.[20]AB 102, 116.[21]AB 103.[22]AB 103, 104.[23]AB 104, 105.[24]AB 106.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.