R v Caulfield

[2012] QCA 204

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Caulfield [2012] QCA 204

PARTIES:

R
v
CAULFIELD, Neville Eric
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 155 of 2012
DC No 20 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gympie

DELIVERED ON:

10 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 July 2012

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Muir and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant convicted of one count of common assault and two counts of indecent assault – where complainant a 16 year old student that resided with the appellant and his wife – where complainant and her mother gave evidence with respect to apologies made by appellant – where trial judge held apologies were capable of amounting to an admission against interest – where appellant argued evidence of complainant inconsistent and uncorroborated – whether apologies capable of amounting to an admission against interest – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where appellant convicted of one count of common assault (count 1) and two counts of indecent assault (counts 2 and 3) – where appellant received head sentence of six months imprisonment suspended after serving three months with an operational period of two years – where appellant argued sentence manifestly excessive – where appellant had no criminal history and a good work record – where offending conduct committed on the same day and within a short timeframe – whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Donaldson (1977) 64 Cr App R 59, cited
R v Duncan (1981) 73 Cr App R 359, cited
R v Jones[2003] QCA 450, cited
R v Khalil (1987) 44 SASR 23, cited
R v Manser[2010] QCA 32, considered
R v PV; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] 2 Qd R 325; [2004] QCA 494, considered
R v Quick; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2006) 166 A Crim R 588; [2006] QCA 477, cited
R v Sharp [1988] 1 WLR 7; (1988) 86 Cr App R 274, cited
The Queen v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1, cited

COUNSEL:

S T Courtney for the appellant/applicant
P McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Butler McDermott for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. CHIEF JUSTICE:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Muir JA.  I agree with the orders proposed by His Honour, and with his reasons.

1. MUIR JA: Introduction The appellant was convicted after a trial in the District Court of one count of common assault and two counts of indecent assault on a 16 year old student.  The…