R v Baldwin - [2009] QCA 337

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Baldwin [2009] QCA 337

PARTIES:

R
v
BALDWIN, Jonathon Thomas
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 84 of 2009
DC No 188 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 November 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2009

JUDGE:

Chief Justice, Muir JA and A Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant was found guilty after a trial of one count of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child between 31 March 2004 and 9 October 2006, eight counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and one count of sodomy – where appellant was a youth pastor at local church – where appellant appeals against his conviction on the grounds that the guilty verdicts were “unsafe and unsatisfactory and not according to law” – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty – whether the summing up was inadequate or unfair to the defence – whether the meaning of “beyond reasonable doubt” was given to the jury

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), ss 21A, 93A

Bourke v R (1988) 62 ALJR 425, followed
Darkan v R (2006) 80 ALJR 1250; (2006) ALR 334; [2006] HCA 34, followed
R v FL [2005] QCA 104, followed
R v G [1994] 1 Qd R 540; [1993] QCA 267; followed
R v Punj [2002] QCA 333, followed

COUNSEL:

A C Smith for the appellant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Kirwin Solicitors for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

: CHIEF JUSTICEI have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of A Lyons J, with which I agree.

As to the first ground, that the conviction is unsafe, “an independent assessment of the evidence, both as to its sufficiency and quality” (Morris v R (1987) 163 CLR 454, 473) has satisfied me of the safety of the conviction.

While the High Court has made it clear that issues of pure credibility nevertheless warrant appellate re-examination, it remains significant in this case that the evidence of the complainant, which was comprehensively tested over a lengthy period, was not inherently doubtful, was relatively cohesive and consistent, and gained some support from the evidence of surrounding circumstances (as to which one might consider the disturbingly close – allowing for age gap – nature of the relationship etc).

There is another point which should be mentioned. If the complainant was dishonest in his account (and there was no ground for mistake), it was dishonesty of gross proportion, and the evidence disclosed no reason why the complainant would resort to such…

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 Baldwin

Details

AGLC: R v Baldwin [2009] QCA 337
Case: [2009] QCA 337
Decision Date: 3 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Baldwin involved an appeal by the appellant, a former youth pastor, against his conviction for various child sexual offences. The appellant was found guilty of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child, indecently treating a child under 16 on multiple occasions, and committing sodomy. The appeal centred on the contention that the guilty verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory and not according to law. The appellant argued that the verdicts were not supported by the evidence and that the summing up by the trial judge was inadequate or unfair to the defence. Additionally, the appellant contended that the jury was not properly directed on the meaning of the term “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt, whether the summing up was adequate, and whether the jury was properly instructed on the standard of proof. The court had to carefully examine the evidence presented at trial and determine if the jury's verdicts were supported by that evidence. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the trial judge's summing up was fair and whether it correctly conveyed the legal principles to the jury. The court also had to consider if the jury was correctly informed about the requirement to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before convicting the appellant.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the jury's verdicts were supported by the evidence and that the trial judge's summing up was fair and adequate. The court held that the jury had been properly directed on the standard of proof required to convict the appellant. The evidence, including testimonies from the victims and other witnesses, was deemed sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's convictions were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is 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 Baldwin [2009] QCA 337
PARTIES:	R v BALDWIN, Jonathon Thomas (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 84 of 2009 DC No 188 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 November 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 October 2009
JUDGE:	Chief Justice, Muir JA and A Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant was found guilty after a trial of one count of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child between 31 March 2004 and 9 October 2006, eight counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and one count of sodomy – where appellant was a youth pastor at local church – where appellant appeals against his conviction on the grounds that the guilty verdicts were “unsafe and unsatisfactory and not according to law” – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty – whether the summing up was inadequate or unfair to the defence – whether the meaning of “beyond reasonable doubt” was given to the jury Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), ss 21A, 93A Bourke v R (1988) 62 ALJR 425, followed Darkan v R (2006) 80 ALJR 1250; (2006) ALR 334; [2006] HCA 34, followed R v FL [2005] QCA 104, followed R v G [1994] 1 Qd R 540; [1993] QCA 267; followed R v Punj [2002] QCA 333, followed
COUNSEL:	A C Smith for the appellant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Kirwin Solicitors for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent