R v C - [1994] QCA 318

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 318

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 170 of 1994
Brisbane

[R. v. C]

BETWEEN:

T H E     Q U E E N
v.
C  Appellant
Fitzgerald P.
  Davies JA.
  McPherson JA.

Judgment delivered 01/09/94

Judgment of the Court

Appeal dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - inconsistent verdicts - indecent dealing - appellant father charged with five counts of indecent dealing with daughter from the ages of 9 to 13 years - acquitted of three charges - complainant gave evidence of indecent dealings some time ago over an extended period of her childhood - complainant had made false accusations before - whether a reasonable jury could accept the complainant's evidence on two counts while rejecting similar evidence on the other three counts

Counsel:Mr. S.E. Herbert Q.C. for the appellant
Mr. B. Butler for the Crown

Solicitors:Legal Aid Office for the appellant
Director of Prosecutions for the Crown

Hearing Date: 28/07/94

Judgment delivered 01/09/94

The appellant was tried in the District Court on five counts, namely:

"That on a date unknown between the 30th day of November 1991 and the 1st day of February 1992 at Marsden in the State of Queensland you unlawfully and indecently dealt with one A, a child under the age of 16 years.

And that at the time aforesaid you then knew that the said A was your lineal descendant.

...

AND FURTHER that on a date unknown between the 25th day of December 1991 and the 1st day of February 1992 at Marsden in the State of Queensland you without legitimate reason wilfully and unlawfully exposed one A, a child under the age of 16 years, to an indecent video.

...

AND FURTHER that on a date unknown between the 30th day of September 1992 and the 19th day of November 1992 at Waterford West in the State of Queensland you wilfully and unlawfully exposed one A a child under the age of 16 years to an indecent act.

And that at the time aforesaid you then knew that the said A was your lineal descendant.

...

AND FURTHER that on or about the 17th day of November 1992 at Waterford West in the State of Queensland you unlawfully and indecently dealt with one A, a child under the age of 16 years.

And that at the time aforesaid you then knew that the said A was your lineal descendant.

...

AND FURTHER that between the 3rd day of July 1989 and the 19th day of November 1992 at Marsden and elsewhere in the State of Queensland you being an adult maintained an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with one A, a child under the age of 16 years.

And in the course of the said relationship you unlawfully and indecently dealt with one A, a child under the age of 16 years.

And further that at the time aforesaid you then knew that the said A was your lineal descendant.

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 C

Details

AGLC: R v C [1994] QCA 318
Case: [1994] QCA 318
Decision Date: 1 September 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v C before the Court of Appeal involved the appellant, who was convicted on two counts of indecent dealing with his daughter, while being acquitted on three other similar charges. The appellant appealed against his convictions and also sought leave to appeal against his sentences. The court considered whether the jury's acceptance of the complainant's evidence on two counts, while rejecting similar evidence on the other three, was reasonable and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The complainant, the appellant's daughter, provided evidence of a pattern of sexual abuse over several years, but the court acknowledged the inherent difficulties in such cases, including inconsistencies and lack of precision in the complainant's testimony.

The court found that the inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's evidence, as well as her previous false accusations, did not disqualify her from being a credible witness. The jury's decision to convict on two counts while acquitting on three others was consistent with the view that while the complainant was essentially truthful, she was unreliable regarding specific details of past events. The court concluded that the jury could reasonably accept the complainant's evidence on certain counts while rejecting it on others. Consequently, the appeal against the convictions was dismissed.

Regarding the sentence, the court considered the appellant's background, his lack of previous convictions, and his personal difficulties. However, these factors were weighed against the gravity of the offences, which involved sexual abuse of his daughter over several years, and his lack of remorse. The court determined that a sentence of imprisonment for three years on the fifth count was appropriate, considering the nature of the offences and community standards. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders