R v Cain

Case [2010] QCA 373

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cain [2010] QCA 373

PARTIES:

R
v
CAIN, Ryan Thomas
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 156 of 2008
DC No 35 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 September 2010

JUDGES:

Fraser and White JJA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment 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 – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – WHAT CONSTITUTES – where the appellant was charged with four counts of rape, one count of doing grievous bodily harm and one count of breaking and entering with intent – where the appellant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of rape and doing grievous bodily harm, and was convicted of the remaining rape counts – where the appellant applied for leave to appeal against sentence and his solicitor became concerned about his mental health – where the appellant was seen by a psychiatrist who reported that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia with grandiose and persecutory delusions – whether the appellant was fit for trial – whether the appellant was able to make a defence or answer the charge by giving instructions and evidence – whether on appeal the evidence raises a real and substantial question to be considered about the appellant’s fitness for trial – whether a jury, acting reasonably, could conclude that the appellant was not fit for trial – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 11 years imprisonment for each count of rape and three and a half years imprisonment for breaking and entering – where the appellant sought leave to appeal against sentence – whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 613(1), s 668E(1), s 668E(1A)
Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A

Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485; [1993] HCA 15, cited
CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board (2009) 239 CLR 390; [2009] HCA 47, cited
Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1; [2000] HCA 29, applied
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22, cited
Gett v Tabet (2009) 254 ALR 504; [2009] NSWCA 76, applied
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45, cited
Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41, cited
R v Basaca[2006] QCA 352

Continue reading R v Cain

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Cain [2010] QCA 373
Case
[2010] QCA 373
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was charged with four counts of rape, one count of doing grievous bodily harm, and one count of breaking and entering with intent. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of breaking and entering, while the jury acquitted him of one count of rape and the charge of grievous bodily harm. The appellant was convicted on the remaining rape charges and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 11 years imprisonment for each count of rape and three and a half years imprisonment for breaking and entering. The appellant applied for leave to appeal against sentence, and his solicitor became concerned about his mental health. The appellant was seen by a psychiatrist who reported that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia with grandiose and persecutory delusions. The appellant claimed that he was not fit for trial as he was unable to make a defence or answer the charge by giving instructions and evidence.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant was fit for trial at the time of the trial. The court needed to consider whether the evidence raised a real and substantial question to be considered about the appellant’s fitness for trial. The court also needed to consider whether a jury, acting reasonably, could conclude that the appellant was not fit for trial. The court was further required to determine whether there was a miscarriage of justice and whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive.

The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice as the jury had sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of the remaining rape charges. The court also found that the appellant was fit for trial as he was able to understand the nature of the charges, the potential consequences of the trial, and to participate in his defence. The court further found that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was not manifestly excessive, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The appeal against conviction was also dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was not manifestly excessive. The court also found that the appellant was fit for trial and was able to understand the nature of the charges, the potential consequences of the trial, and to participate in his defence.

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.