R v BDR - [2022] QCA 85

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v BDR [2022] QCA 85

PARTIES:

R
v
BDR
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 252 of 2020
CA No 119 of 2021
DC No 335 of 2019
DC No 74 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay – Date of Conviction: 19 October 2020; Date of Sentence: 29 April 2021 (Richards DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

20 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 February 2022

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and McMurdo JA and Kelly J

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where a jury found the appellant guilty of three offences of rape, one offence of procuring a woman, without her consent, to commit an act of gross indecency, one count of unlawful choking and one charge of contravening a domestic violence order – where the appellant was his mid-forties at the time of offending – where the appellant and the complainant were in a domestic relationship – whether the guilty verdict can be supported on the evidence – whether the verdict is unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where a jury found the applicant guilty of three offences of rape, one offence of procuring a woman, without her consent, to commit an act of gross indecency, one count of unlawful choking and one charge of contravening a domestic violence order – where the applicant was arraigned on an indictment of one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice and two counts of contravening a domestic violence order – where the applicant pleaded guilty at sentencing to one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice and two counts of contravening a domestic violence order – where the sentences were both concurrent and cumulative – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Burton[2014] QCA 37, cited
R v Motlop[2013] QCA 301, cited
R v TAQ[2020] QCA 200, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
C N Marco for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: A jury found the appellant guilty of three offences of rape, one offence of procuring a woman, without her consent, to commit an act of gross indecency, one count of unlawful choking and one charge of contravening a domestic violence order. Richards DCJ sentenced the appellant to an effective term of imprisonment of eight years with parole eligibility fixed at 19 July 2023. The appellant has appealed against his convictions and seeks leave to appeal against his sentences.
The appellant and complainant had been in a relationship for about 10 years and were living together. They had two…

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 BDR

Details

AGLC: R v BDR [2022] QCA 85
Case: [2022] QCA 85
Decision Date: 20 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, BDR, was convicted by a jury of multiple serious sexual offences against a complainant with whom he was in a domestic relationship. The offences included three counts of rape, one count of procuring a woman without her consent to commit an act of gross indecency, one count of unlawful choking, and one count of contravening a domestic violence order. The appeal against his conviction and sentence was heard in the relevant appellate court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury's guilty verdict was unreasonable or incapable of being supported on the evidence presented. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the evidence meticulously and determined that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and was not unreasonable. The court found that the complainant's testimony, supported by corroborating evidence, was credible and consistent, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offences. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the verdict was unreasonable, affirming the jury's assessment of the evidence. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the punishment imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, taking into account the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court's decision upheld the jury's verdict and the sentence imposed, reflecting the seriousness of the appellant's criminal conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. 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 BDR [2022] QCA 85
PARTIES:	R v BDR (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 252 of 2020 CA No 119 of 2021 DC No 335 of 2019 DC No 74 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay – Date of Conviction: 19 October 2020; Date of Sentence: 29 April 2021 (Richards DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	20 May 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 February 2022
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and McMurdo JA and Kelly J
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. 2. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where a jury found the appellant guilty of three offences of rape, one offence of procuring a woman, without her consent, to commit an act of gross indecency, one count of unlawful choking and one charge of contravening a domestic violence order – where the appellant was his mid-forties at the time of offending – where the appellant and the complainant were in a domestic relationship – whether the guilty verdict can be supported on the evidence – whether the verdict is unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where a jury found the applicant guilty of three offences of rape, one offence of procuring a woman, without her consent, to commit an act of gross indecency, one count of unlawful choking and one charge of contravening a domestic violence order – where the applicant was arraigned on an indictment of one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice and two counts of contravening a domestic violence order – where the applicant pleaded guilty at sentencing to one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice and two counts of contravening a domestic violence order – where the sentences were both concurrent and cumulative – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Burton[2014] QCA 37, cited R v Motlop[2013] QCA 301, cited R v TAQ[2020] QCA 200, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf C N Marco for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent