R v Cahill - [2014] QCA 208

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cahill [2014] QCA 208

PARTIES:

R
v
CAHILL, Dean Stewart
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 310 of 2013
DC No 263 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 June 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA concurring as to the orders made, Morrison JA dissenting

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal against conviction is allowed.

2.   The verdict of guilty on count 4 is set aside.

3.   A retrial is ordered on count 4.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was charged with one count of assault with intent to commit rape (count 1) and three counts of sexual assault (counts 2 to 4) – where the jury found the appellant not guilty on counts 1 to 3 and guilty on count 4 – where the appellant contends that the verdict of guilty is unreasonable because it cannot be supported by the evidence and is inconsistent with the verdicts of acquittal – where all offences were alleged to have been committed on the same date against the same complainant – where the appellant contends that the prosecution’s case depended largely upon the acceptance of the complainant’s evidence – where the appellant contends if the jury rejected the complainant’s evidence on counts 1 to 3 they should have rejected the complainant’s evidence on count 4 – whether the verdict of guilty on count 4 is inconsistent with the verdicts of acquittal on counts 1 to 3 – whether the differing verdicts are so illogical and unreasonable that they should be set aside – where if the verdict is found to be inconsistent the appellant should be acquitted or a retrial ordered on count 4

Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, applied
R v CX[2006] QCA 409, applied

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC, with H A Walters, for the appellant
G P Cash for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Rennick Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The appellant was charged with one count of assault with intent to commit rape (count 1) and three counts of sexual assault (counts 2 to 4). All offences were alleged to have been committed on 11 October 2012 on the same complainant, the partner of the appellant’s cousin. The jury found the appellant not guilty on counts 1 to 3 but convicted him on count 4. The sole ground of appeal against conviction is that the verdict of guilty is unreasonable because it cannot be supported by the evidence and is inconsistent with the verdicts of acquittal.

Morrison JA has set out most of the relevant aspects of the evidence and identified…

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 Cahill

Details

AGLC: R v Cahill [2014] QCA 208
Case: [2014] QCA 208
Decision Date: 26 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cahill, the appellant stood trial on four counts related to alleged sexual offences against a single complainant. Count 1 involved an assault with intent to commit rape, while counts 2 to 4 related to sexual assault. The jury acquitted the appellant on counts 1 to 3 but found him guilty on count 4. The appellant's appeal focused on the inconsistency and unreasonableness of the verdict on count 4, given the acquittals on the other counts. The appellant argued that the jury's acceptance of the complainant's evidence on count 4 was incompatible with their rejection of it on counts 1 to 3. The court was tasked with determining whether the differing verdicts were illogical and unreasonable to the point of necessitating a retrial or an acquittal on count 4.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdict of guilty on count 4 was inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 1 to 3 and whether such inconsistency rendered the verdict unreasonable. The appellant's counsel contended that the jury's acceptance of the complainant's evidence on count 4, while rejecting it on the other counts, was illogical. The prosecution argued that the jury was entitled to believe different parts of the complainant's testimony, depending on the specific charge. The court needed to assess the coherence and reasonableness of the jury's verdicts in light of the evidence presented.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged the principle that a jury's verdict, if supported by evidence, must be accepted unless it is patently illogical or unreasonable. The court examined the evidence and the jury's reasoning and found that the differing verdicts were indeed inconsistent and unreasonable. Given the complainant's evidence was central to the prosecution's case, the jury's partial acceptance of it raised questions about the reliability and coherence of their decision-making process. Consequently, the court concluded that the verdict on count 4 was inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 1 to 3 and was unreasonable. As a result, the appeal against the conviction on count 4 was allowed, the guilty verdict was set aside, and a retrial was ordered on that count.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is allowed.

2. The verdict of guilty on count 4 is set aside.

3. A retrial is ordered on count 4.

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 Cahill [2014] QCA 208
PARTIES:	R v CAHILL, Dean Stewart (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 310 of 2013 DC No 263 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	26 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 June 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA concurring as to the orders made, Morrison JA dissenting
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is allowed. 2. The verdict of guilty on count 4 is set aside. 3. A retrial is ordered on count 4.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was charged with one count of assault with intent to commit rape (count 1) and three counts of sexual assault (counts 2 to 4) – where the jury found the appellant not guilty on counts 1 to 3 and guilty on count 4 – where the appellant contends that the verdict of guilty is unreasonable because it cannot be supported by the evidence and is inconsistent with the verdicts of acquittal – where all offences were alleged to have been committed on the same date against the same complainant – where the appellant contends that the prosecution’s case depended largely upon the acceptance of the complainant’s evidence – where the appellant contends if the jury rejected the complainant’s evidence on counts 1 to 3 they should have rejected the complainant’s evidence on count 4 – whether the verdict of guilty on count 4 is inconsistent with the verdicts of acquittal on counts 1 to 3 – whether the differing verdicts are so illogical and unreasonable that they should be set aside – where if the verdict is found to be inconsistent the appellant should be acquitted or a retrial ordered on count 4 Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, applied R v CX[2006] QCA 409, applied
COUNSEL:	M J Copley QC, with H A Walters, for the appellant G P Cash for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Rennick Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent