R v Bowman - [2001] QCA 500

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Bowman [2001] QCA 500

PARTIES: R
v
BOWMAN, Douglas John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 82 of 2001
DC No 159 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON: 13 November 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 18 October 2001

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Davies and Thomas JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE – INDECENT ASSAULT OR DEALING – where the appellant was charged with various counts of rape and indecent assault occurring between 1973 and 1979 – where he was convicted of five counts and acquitted on the remaining twelve

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION – where the complainant gave evidence of other uncharged acts of indecent dealing – where the trial judge labelled this as background relationship evidence - whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that in relation to this evidence they did not have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt – where the relationship evidence could not be classed as an indispensable link in establishing guilt – where although the bare direction as to the standard of proof was not desirable, it was not erroneous to the extent to have caused a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – whether jury misdirected as to the limited use that could be made of relationship evidence - where the necessity for a specific direction depends on the particular circumstances of each case – principles in KRM and R v Self discussed – where the summing up placed clear limitations on the use of the evidence – R v W distinguished

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – VERDICT – INCONSISTENT, AMBIGUOUS AND MEANINGLESS VERDICTS – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – whether verdicts inconsistent – where the appellant was convicted on counts where there was corroboration and or independent evidence of fresh complaint – whether there was fresh complaint in respect of three of those counts – where there was evidence to suggest fresh complaint – where the verdicts were rationally explicable on this basis

BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275, considered
Cook (1990) 170 CLR 573, considered
Gipp v R (1998) 194 CLR 106, considered
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, distinguished
KRM v R (2001) 75 ALJR 550, considered
McKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, distinguished
Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573, distinguished
R v Delgado-Guerra;ex parte Attorney-General [2001] QCA 266; CA No 324 of 2001, 17 July 2001, considered
R v LSS [2001] Qd R 546, considered
R v Self [2001] QCA 338;…

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 Bowman

Details

AGLC: R v Bowman [2001] QCA 500
Case: [2001] QCA 500
Decision Date: 13 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Bowman, the appellant was convicted of various counts of rape and indecent assault that occurred between 1973 and 1979. The court found the appellant guilty of five counts of the offences and acquitted him on the remaining twelve. The case was brought before the court on appeal, challenging the conviction on various grounds including misdirection by the trial judge and inconsistency in the jury's verdicts.

The central legal issues that the court had to address included whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury about the standard of proof required for the background relationship evidence presented by the complainant. Additionally, the court examined whether the jury was misdirected in relation to the limited use that could be made of the relationship evidence, and if the verdicts were inconsistent, ambiguous, and meaningless given the evidence of fresh complaints.

In its reasoning, the court held that although the bare direction concerning the standard of proof was not ideal, it did not amount to an error that caused a miscarriage of justice. The court further clarified that the necessity for a specific direction regarding the use of relationship evidence depended on the unique circumstances of each case. It noted that the summing up placed clear limitations on the use of such evidence and distinguished it from other cases where broader directions may have been necessary. The court also found that the verdicts, while seemingly inconsistent, were rationally explicable when considering the evidence of fresh complaints.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the original verdicts were upheld. The court did not find sufficient grounds to order a new trial or inquiry after conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Bowman [2001] QCA 500
PARTIES:	R v BOWMAN, Douglas John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 82 of 2001 DC No 159 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	13 November 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 October 2001
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies and Thomas JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE – INDECENT ASSAULT OR DEALING – where the appellant was charged with various counts of rape and indecent assault occurring between 1973 and 1979 – where he was convicted of five counts and acquitted on the remaining twelve CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION – where the complainant gave evidence of other uncharged acts of indecent dealing – where the trial judge labelled this as background relationship evidence - whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that in relation to this evidence they did not have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt – where the relationship evidence could not be classed as an indispensable link in establishing guilt – where although the bare direction as to the standard of proof was not desirable, it was not erroneous to the extent to have caused a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – whether jury misdirected as to the limited use that could be made of relationship evidence - where the necessity for a specific direction depends on the particular circumstances of each case – principles in KRM and R v Self discussed – where the summing up placed clear limitations on the use of the evidence – R v W distinguished CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – VERDICT – INCONSISTENT, AMBIGUOUS AND MEANINGLESS VERDICTS – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – whether verdicts inconsistent – where the appellant was convicted on counts where there was corroboration and or independent evidence of fresh complaint – whether there was fresh complaint in respect of three of those counts – where there was evidence to suggest fresh complaint – where the verdicts were rationally explicable on this basis BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275, considered Cook (1990) 170 CLR 573, considered Gipp v R (1998) 194 CLR 106, considered Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, distinguished KRM v R (2001) 75 ALJR 550, considered McKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, distinguished Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573, distinguished R v Delgado-Guerra;ex parte Attorney-General [2001] QCA 266; CA No 324 of 2001, 17 July 2001, considered R v LSS [2001] Qd R 546, considered R v Self [2001] QCA 338;…