R v Brown

Case [2020] QCA 33

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brown [2020] QCA 33

PARTIES:

R
v
BROWN, Danny Thomas
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 210 of 2018
DC No 97 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction: 26 July 2018 (Horneman-Wren SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

3 March 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 October 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Henry and Davis JJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – the appellant was found guilty after a trial of six counts of rape, five counts of indecent treatment of a child and one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child – where there were other allegations being heard under a separate indictment for sexual offences committed by the appellant against the complainant’s sister – where the appellant’s counsel at trial during cross-examination suggested that the complainant had fabricated their allegations against the appellant – where counsel had followed the appellant’s instructions to do so – where questioning the complainant’s motive to lie rendered admissible evidence by the complainant’s sister – where the trial judge directed the jury about the use of this evidence – whether the appellant’s counsel conducted the cross-examination in a way that caused an unfair trial – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code (Qld)

BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275; [1997] HCA 47, cited
De Jesus v The Queen (1986) 61 ALJR 1; [1986] HCA 65, cited
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, distinguished
Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590; [1989] HCA 50, cited
HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, cited
Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292; [1988] HCA 50, distinguished
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20, cited
KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; [2001] HCA 11, cited
Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493; [1955] HCA 59, considered
Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2, considered
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; [1995] HCA 7, cited
R v Bevinetto [2019] 2 Qd R 320; [2018] QCA 219, cited
R v Boardman [1975] AC 421; [1974] 3 All ER 887, cited
R v Cranston [1988] 1 Qd R 159, distinguished
R v Griffin (No 1) (1868) 1 QSCR 176, cited
R v O’Meally (No 2) [1953] VLR 30; [1953] VicLawRp 7, cited
R v Phair [1986] 1 Qd R 136, cited
R v T[1999] QCA 376, cited
R v Taylor[2000] QCA 96, cited
Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528; [1984] HCA 5, cited
TKWJ v The Queen

Continue reading R v Brown

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Brown [2020] QCA 33
Case
[2020] QCA 33
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Brown, the appellant was convicted following a trial on six counts of rape, five counts of indecent treatment of a child, and one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. These offences were committed against the complainant, with additional allegations concerning the appellant's sexual offences against the complainant's sister being heard under a separate indictment. During the trial, the appellant's counsel cross-examined the complainant, suggesting that the complainant had fabricated the allegations against the appellant, as directed by the appellant. This line of questioning, however, rendered admissible the evidence provided by the complainant's sister, which the trial judge subsequently directed the jury to consider. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the cross-examination amounted to a miscarriage of justice, as it was unfair and prejudiced the jury's assessment.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant's counsel's conduct during the cross-examination was so prejudicial that it amounted to a miscarriage of justice, and if there were any other irregularities that could have influenced the outcome of the trial. The appellant contended that the cross-examination was unfair and that the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the sister's evidence compounded the unfairness. The court considered the appellant's argument alongside the broader context of the trial, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence presented, and the trial judge's instructions to the jury.

The court found that while the cross-examination may have been challenging for the complainant, it did not reach the threshold of unfairness that would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the trial judge had properly directed the jury regarding the use of the sister's evidence, and that the overall trial process was fair. The court also found no other irregularities that would have influenced the outcome of the trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appellant's appeal and uphold the convictions for six counts of rape, five counts of indecent treatment of a child, and one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.