R v Bradfield - [2012] QCA 337

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bradfield [2012] QCA 337

PARTIES:

R
v
BRADFIELD, Allan William
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 25 of 2012
CA No 36 of 2012
DC No 1782 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 October 2012

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir JJA and Daubney J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Allow the appeal against conviction on count 1.

2.    Set aside the conviction on count 1 and order a re-trial.

3.    Dismiss the appeal against conviction on counts 3 and 10.

4.    Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted on one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years – where the appellant was acquitted on two counts on the indictment alleging exposure of the complainant to an indecent film – where the verdict on one of those counts was a majority verdict – where those offences did not constitute offences of a sexual nature as defined in s 229B(10) of the Criminal Code and could not be relied on to prove an unlawful sexual relationship – where the trial judge did not distinguish those counts but directed the jury that the Crown relied on all the counts in the indictment to prove the unlawful sexual relationship – where the member of the jury who did not agree with the acquittal on one of the counts involving exposure of the complainant to an indecent film may have based their verdict of guilt on it – where s 229B(3) required that all members of the jury be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of an unlawful sexual relationship involving unlawful sexual acts – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted on one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years – where the appellant contends that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable as inconsistent with acquittal on other counts – where the complainant raised the offences the subject of the convictions at her first interview with police but did not mention the offences in respect of which the appellant was acquitted until her second interview – whether the verdicts were capable of being reconciled on that basis – whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted on one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual…

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 Bradfield

Details

AGLC: R v Bradfield [2012] QCA 337
Case: [2012] QCA 337
Decision Date: 4 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bradfield involved the appellant, who was convicted on one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years. The appellant was acquitted on two counts involving the exposure of the complainant to an indecent film, one of which was decided by a majority verdict. The central issue in the appeal was whether the convictions on the counts of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship and indecent treatment were sustainable given the acquittal on the other counts. The appeal also contested the reasonableness of the verdicts and the adequacy of the sentence.

The court examined whether there had been a miscarriage of justice due to the trial judge's failure to distinguish between the counts that constituted offences of a sexual nature and those that did not. The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury to consider all counts in the indictment to prove the unlawful sexual relationship was misdirection, potentially influencing the jury's verdict on count 1. The court also considered whether the acquittal on the non-sexual nature offences led to an unreasonable verdict on the other counts. The court found that the jury's acceptance of the guilty verdicts, despite the acquittal on other counts, could not be considered unreasonable given the complainant's delayed disclosure of the acquitted offences.

In addition to the miscarriage of justice argument, the appellant argued that the verdicts were unreasonable due to the complainant's unreliable evidence, which was contradicted by other witnesses. The court held that the jury's acceptance of the complainant's evidence, despite inconsistencies, did not render the verdicts unreasonable. The court further addressed the appellant's contention regarding the sentence, finding that the two-year imprisonment term for one of the indecent treatment convictions was not manifestly excessive.

The court allowed the appeal against conviction on count 1, setting aside the conviction and ordering a retrial. The appeals against convictions on counts 3 and 10 were dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal against conviction on count 1.

2. Set aside the conviction on count 1 and order a re-trial.

3. Dismiss the appeal against conviction on counts 3 and 10.

4. Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

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 Bradfield [2012] QCA 337
PARTIES:	R v BRADFIELD, Allan William (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 25 of 2012 CA No 36 of 2012 DC No 1782 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 October 2012
JUDGES:	Holmes and Muir JJA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Allow the appeal against conviction on count 1. 2. Set aside the conviction on count 1 and order a re-trial. 3. Dismiss the appeal against conviction on counts 3 and 10. 4. Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – MISDIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted on one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years – where the appellant was acquitted on two counts on the indictment alleging exposure of the complainant to an indecent film – where the verdict on one of those counts was a majority verdict – where those offences did not constitute offences of a sexual nature as defined in s 229B(10) of the Criminal Code and could not be relied on to prove an unlawful sexual relationship – where the trial judge did not distinguish those counts but directed the jury that the Crown relied on all the counts in the indictment to prove the unlawful sexual relationship – where the member of the jury who did not agree with the acquittal on one of the counts involving exposure of the complainant to an indecent film may have based their verdict of guilt on it – where s 229B(3) required that all members of the jury be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of an unlawful sexual relationship involving unlawful sexual acts – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted on one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years – where the appellant contends that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable as inconsistent with acquittal on other counts – where the complainant raised the offences the subject of the convictions at her first interview with police but did not mention the offences in respect of which the appellant was acquitted until her second interview – whether the verdicts were capable of being reconciled on that basis – whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted on one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual…