R v C - [2003] QCA 441

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v C [2003] QCA 441

PARTIES:

R
v
C
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 70 of 2003
DC No 54 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2003

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgement of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where inconsistencies arose in portions of the complainant’s evidence over time – where complainant provided consistent accounts of the offences in cross-examination – where complainant’s otherwise unexplained knowledge of distinguishing features of the appellant gave her evidence overwhelmingly persuasive force – whether verdicts unsafe or unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CONCURRENT, CUMULATIVE AND ADDITIONAL SENTENCES – POWER TO IMPOSE – GENERALLY – where appellant committed offences whilst on parole – where legislation requires sentences for such offences to be served cumulatively upon any existing terms – where learned sentencing judge was not reminded of this or the relevant details of the appellant’s criminal history – where absence of cumulative order means appellant only needs to serve these sentences concurrently with existing terms – where provisions of relevant legislation impose mandatory sentencing – whether this Court should now order that these sentences be served cumulatively

Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 151, s 152
Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 156A, s 157

M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied
R v Burton [1995] QCA 445; CA No 492 of 1994, 6 October 1995, referred to
R v Doyle [1996] 1 Qd R 407, referred to
R v Parker [2002] QCA 403; CA No 160 of 2002, 4 October 2002, referred to

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter for the appellant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: I have read the reasons of Jerrard JA, with which I agree. The appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed.

JERRARD JA: On 5 March 2003 C was convicted by a jury on one count of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 16 years, and two counts of having wilfully and unlawfully exposed a child under the age of 16 years to an indecent act. The conviction for having indecently dealt with a child under the age of 16 years was returned as an alternative verdict open to the jury, pursuant to s 578(1) of the Criminal…

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 [2003] QCA 441
Case: [2003] QCA 441
Decision Date: 17 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v C, the High Court of Australia was called upon to consider an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of offences committed while on parole and was subsequently sentenced. The central issue in the appeal was whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, given inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence over time. Despite these inconsistencies, the complainant provided consistent accounts of the offences during cross-examination, and her knowledge of distinguishing features of the appellant lent persuasive force to her testimony. The court was required to determine if the verdict was so unsafe or unsatisfactory that it should be quashed.

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence presented during the trial and the reasons for the jury's verdict. The court found that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence did not undermine the overall persuasiveness of her testimony, particularly when considering her consistent cross-examination accounts and unexplained knowledge of specific details. The court concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable, thereby dismissing the appeal against conviction. However, the court also considered the sentencing issue, where the appellant had committed offences while on parole. The relevant legislation mandated that such sentences be served cumulatively upon any existing terms, but the sentencing judge was not reminded of this requirement or the specifics of the appellant's criminal history. The court ultimately decided not to impose a cumulative order, as the mandatory sentencing provisions already in place would have the same effect. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was also dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for 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 C [2003] QCA 441
PARTIES:	R v C (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 70 of 2003 DC No 54 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 October 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2003
JUDGES:	McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgement of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where inconsistencies arose in portions of the complainant’s evidence over time – where complainant provided consistent accounts of the offences in cross-examination – where complainant’s otherwise unexplained knowledge of distinguishing features of the appellant gave her evidence overwhelmingly persuasive force – whether verdicts unsafe or unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CONCURRENT, CUMULATIVE AND ADDITIONAL SENTENCES – POWER TO IMPOSE – GENERALLY – where appellant committed offences whilst on parole – where legislation requires sentences for such offences to be served cumulatively upon any existing terms – where learned sentencing judge was not reminded of this or the relevant details of the appellant’s criminal history – where absence of cumulative order means appellant only needs to serve these sentences concurrently with existing terms – where provisions of relevant legislation impose mandatory sentencing – whether this Court should now order that these sentences be served cumulatively Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 151, s 152 Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 156A, s 157 M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied R v Burton [1995] QCA 445; CA No 492 of 1994, 6 October 1995, referred to R v Doyle [1996] 1 Qd R 407, referred to R v Parker [2002] QCA 403; CA No 160 of 2002, 4 October 2002, referred to
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter for the appellant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent