R v AJ - [2003] QCA 50

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v AJ [2003] QCA 50

PARTIES:

R
v
AJ
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 298 of 2002
DC No 1409 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – GENERALLY – appellant convicted of rape – where place of purchase of objects used in the commission of the offence was connected with the purpose of the purchase – where the purpose of purchase of relevance to the question of consent – where the place of purchase of the objects was a fact relevant to a fact in issue and admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where trial judge admitted evidence of a conversation between the appellant and the complainant in which the appellant said he was proud that he had not hit the complainant – whether evidence did not advance Crown case and was prejudicial – where it was the complainant’s evidence that the appellant was angry during and leading up to the commission of the offences – where evidence was supportive of complainant’s account and was rightly admitted

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CORROBORATION – WHAT CONSTITUTES CORROBORATION – where complainant and appellant gave conflicting accounts of incident -and a mark on the complainant’s arm was consistent with both accounts – whether the evidence concerning the mark was intractably neutral – whether or not the evidence does provide corroboration or support is a question for the jury

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the factual matters relied on by the appellant to argue that the verdicts were unreasonable were canvassed during the trial and were before the jury – whether on the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied
R v Kerim [1988] 1 Qd R 426, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter for the appellant
R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gilshenan & Luton for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Mullins J for concluding that the appeal should be dismissed.

McPHERSON JA: I agree with the reasons given by Mullins J for dismissing this appeal.

MULLINS J: The appellant was convicted after trial of one count of deprivation of liberty and two counts of rape. At the time of the offences the appellant and the complainant were engaged to be married. The date…

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 AJ

Details

AGLC: R v AJ [2003] QCA 50
Case: [2003] QCA 50
Decision Date: 21 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v AJ, the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of rape and other related offences. The appellant appealed against his conviction on several grounds, including the admissibility of certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue in this appeal was the admissibility of certain evidence and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Specifically, the appellant challenged the admissibility of evidence regarding the place of purchase of items used in the commission of the offence, a conversation between the appellant and the complainant, and the significance of a mark on the complainant's arm.

The court found that the evidence concerning the place of purchase was relevant and admissible, as it connected to the issue of consent. The court also held that the conversation between the appellant and the complainant, in which the appellant expressed pride in not hitting the complainant, was properly admitted as it supported the complainant's account of events. Regarding the mark on the complainant's arm, the court determined that whether this evidence provided corroboration or support was a question for the jury, and that the evidence was not intractably neutral. Finally, the court found that the appeal against the conviction on the grounds of an unreasonable or unsafe verdict was dismissed, as the factual matters relied upon by the appellant had been canvassed during the trial and were before the jury.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellant's conviction. The court held that the evidence was properly admitted and that the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt based on the whole of the evidence. The convictions were therefore 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 AJ [2003] QCA 50
PARTIES:	R v AJ (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 298 of 2002 DC No 1409 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 February 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – GENERALLY – appellant convicted of rape – where place of purchase of objects used in the commission of the offence was connected with the purpose of the purchase – where the purpose of purchase of relevance to the question of consent – where the place of purchase of the objects was a fact relevant to a fact in issue and admissible CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where trial judge admitted evidence of a conversation between the appellant and the complainant in which the appellant said he was proud that he had not hit the complainant – whether evidence did not advance Crown case and was prejudicial – where it was the complainant’s evidence that the appellant was angry during and leading up to the commission of the offences – where evidence was supportive of complainant’s account and was rightly admitted CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CORROBORATION – WHAT CONSTITUTES CORROBORATION – where complainant and appellant gave conflicting accounts of incident -and a mark on the complainant’s arm was consistent with both accounts – whether the evidence concerning the mark was intractably neutral – whether or not the evidence does provide corroboration or support is a question for the jury CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the factual matters relied on by the appellant to argue that the verdicts were unreasonable were canvassed during the trial and were before the jury – whether on the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied R v Kerim [1988] 1 Qd R 426, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter for the appellant R G Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gilshenan & Luton for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent