R v B - [2000] QCA 19

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v B [2000] QCA 19

PARTIES: R
v
B
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 236 of 1999
SC No 79 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction. Application for leave to appeal against sentence.

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 11 February 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 2 November 1999

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Davies JA and Williams J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed and application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – GENERALLY – whether evidence of confessions in conversations which took place after the appellant was arrested and charged and at request of police repeating confessions previously made was properly admitted – whether confessional statement was made in the exercise of a free choice to speak or be silent – whether unfair to the accused to admit confessional statement – whether admissions were made in the course of conversation or an interrogation – whether unacceptable on public policy grounds to admit statement into evidence – whether prejudicial impact of evidence greater than probative value.

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - whether certain counts were rightly left to the jury – whether verdicts reached by the jury were reasonably open.

Foster v R (1993) 67 ALJR 550, considered
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, applied
Pavic v The Queen [1998] HCA 1; (1997) 192 CLR 159, applied
R v Broyles [1991] 3 SCR 595, considered
R v Davidson (1996) 92 ACrimR 1, considered
R v Hebert [1990] 2 SCR 151, considered
R v Jacobs [1993] 2 QdR 541, applied
R v Knuth CA No 64 of 1998, 23 June 1998, distinguished
R v Swaffield [1998] HCA 1; (1997) 192 CLR 159, applied

COUNSEL: Mr J Hunter for the applicant/appellant
Mr M Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: On 11 June 1999 in the Supreme Court at Brisbane the appellant was charged with three counts of supplying a dangerous drug to a minor, eight counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, seven counts of unlawful carnal knowledge, one count of taking indecent photographs of a child under 16 (count 9), one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child with a circumstance of aggravation. On the same indictment, Inwood and Westerberg were charged with multiple related offences. The appellant pleaded guilty to count 9 and not guilty to the remaining counts. After a…

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 B

Details

AGLC: R v B [2000] QCA 19
Case: [2000] QCA 19
Decision Date: 11 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v B involved the appellant being convicted of various offences, including indecent assault and possession of child pornography. The appellant appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had misdirected the jury in relation to the admissibility of confessional statements made to police, and that certain counts were wrongly left to the jury. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine the legality of the trial judge’s decisions.

The central legal issues were whether the trial judge had properly admitted evidence of the appellant's confessional statements to the police, and whether the verdicts reached by the jury were reasonably open. The appellant argued that the confessional statements were not made freely, and that their admission was unfair and prejudicial. The appellant also contended that certain counts were not properly left to the jury, and that the jury's verdicts could not have been reasonably reached.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly admitted the confessional statements, as they were made voluntarily and in the exercise of the appellant's free will. The court held that the prejudicial impact of the evidence did not outweigh its probative value. The court further found that the verdicts reached by the jury were reasonably open, and that there was no misdirection by the trial judge in leaving certain counts to the jury.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court's decision upheld the trial judge's handling of the evidence and the jury's verdicts, concluding that the appellant's arguments did not provide sufficient grounds for overturning the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed and application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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 B [2000] QCA 19
PARTIES:	R v B (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 236 of 1999 SC No 79 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction. Application for leave to appeal against sentence.
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 February 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 November 1999
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and Williams J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed and application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – GENERALLY – whether evidence of confessions in conversations which took place after the appellant was arrested and charged and at request of police repeating confessions previously made was properly admitted – whether confessional statement was made in the exercise of a free choice to speak or be silent – whether unfair to the accused to admit confessional statement – whether admissions were made in the course of conversation or an interrogation – whether unacceptable on public policy grounds to admit statement into evidence – whether prejudicial impact of evidence greater than probative value. CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE - whether certain counts were rightly left to the jury – whether verdicts reached by the jury were reasonably open. Foster v R (1993) 67 ALJR 550, considered House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, applied Pavic v The Queen [1998] HCA 1; (1997) 192 CLR 159, applied R v Broyles [1991] 3 SCR 595, considered R v Davidson (1996) 92 ACrimR 1, considered R v Hebert [1990] 2 SCR 151, considered R v Jacobs [1993] 2 QdR 541, applied R v Knuth CA No 64 of 1998, 23 June 1998, distinguished R v Swaffield [1998] HCA 1; (1997) 192 CLR 159, applied
COUNSEL:	Mr J Hunter for the applicant/appellant Mr M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent