R v Baldwin

Case [2014] QCA 186

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Baldwin [2014] QCA 186

PARTIES:

R
v
BALDWIN, Ian David
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 269 of 2013
DC No 122 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 July 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Peter Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of indecent assault – where the appellant argues a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the trial judge’s failure to direct the jury about s 24(1) of the Criminal Code – where at trial defence counsel had put the defence case as that the conduct charged as an indecent assault had not happened – whether the evidence at trial raised a case that the appellant honestly and reasonably but mistakenly believed that the complainant consented to the appellant’s conduct

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of indecent assault and was sentenced to three months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of two years – where defence counsel had advocated against community service or probation due to the appellant’s poor cognitive capacity and inability to work, and advocated for a good behaviour bond – where the appellant does not consent to a sentence of community service or probation, argues a good behaviour bond is appropriate and, further, that an operational period of two years is excessive – whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 24(1)

Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437; [1952] HCA 3, cited
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 32, cited
R v Cutts[2005] QCA 306, cited
R v Getachew (2012) 248 CLR 22; [2012] HCA 10, cited
R v Jones[2003] QCA 450, distinguished
R v Millar [2000] 1 Qd R 437; [1998] QCA 276, cited
R v Owen [2008] QCA 171, distinguished
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3, cited
Stevens v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 319; [2005] HCA 65, cited

COUNSEL:

C W Heaton QC for the appellant/applicant
M R Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. FRASER JA:  The appellant was found guilty by a jury at a District Court trial of unlawfully and indecently assaulting the complainant.  He was sentenced to…

Continue reading R v Baldwin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Baldwin [2014] QCA 186
Case
[2014] QCA 186
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Baldwin, appealed against his conviction and sentence for indecent assault. The court considered whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury about section 24(1) of the Criminal Code, which pertains to the honest and reasonable belief of consent in cases of sexual offences. Baldwin argued that the trial judge's omission constituted a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, Baldwin contested the appropriateness of the sentence, claiming it was manifestly excessive and that a good behaviour bond would have been more suitable given his cognitive impairments and inability to engage in community service or probation.

The court examined the evidence presented during the trial to determine whether it raised the possibility that Baldwin honestly and reasonably, albeit mistakenly, believed the complainant consented. The court concluded that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the relevant statutory provision was not a misdirection that amounted to a miscarriage of justice, as the defence did not sufficiently raise the issue of consent in its submissions. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the three-month imprisonment, wholly suspended for two years, was not manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offence and Baldwin's circumstances.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed as the court found no miscarriage of justice occurred. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The original conviction and sentence stood as imposed by the trial court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. 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.