R v CAZ

Case [2011] QCA 231

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CAZ [2011] QCA 231

PARTIES:

R
v
CAZ
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 196 of 2010
DC No 1556 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 May 2011

JUDGES:

Fraser and Chesterman and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of two counts of maintaining an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with a child under 16 years – where the complainants were the appellant’s son and daughter – where there were a number of inconsistencies between the evidence of each child – where the appellant’s case was that a cousin of the complainants had encouraged or procured them to make false allegations – where the trial judge gave a Robinson direction referring to the young age of the complainants and inconsistencies between the evidence of the children generally – where the appellant argued the trial judge ought to have specified the inconsistencies and referred to the effects of delay on the reliability of the complainants’ testimony and the opportunity for the appellant to explore inconsistencies in their evidence – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred by the trial judge’s failure to address these issues in the summing up

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where the trial judge gave a direction on corroborative evidence – where the appellant argued that the direction should have specified the inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants – where the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to identify the proper use the jury could make of the corroborative evidence for each individual count – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of the trial judge’s directions

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – THE FEDERAL JUDICATURE – NATURE AND EXTENT OF JUDICIAL POWER – CONFERRAL ON STATE COURTS – where the appellant argued that s 229B(4) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) offends ch III of the Commonwealth Constitution in that it allows a jury to return a non-unanimous verdict contrary to s 80 of the Constitution, and because it removes the requirement for the jury to be satisfied of the material facts on each element of the offence without putting in place adequate safeguards to ensure a fair trial – whether s 229B(4) deprives the court of defining characteristics which set it apart from other decision-making bodies, thereby rendering it constitutionally invalid

Commonwealth Constitution (Cth), ch III, s 80
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 229B, s 229B(3), s 229B(4), s 573, s 632(3), s 668E(1)

AK v Western Australia (2008)…

Continue reading R v CAZ

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v CAZ [2011] QCA 231
Case
[2011] QCA 231
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v CAZ involved the appellant who was convicted by a jury of two counts of maintaining an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with a child under 16 years. The complainants were the appellant's son and daughter, and the appellant claimed that a cousin of the complainants had encouraged or procured them to make false allegations. The trial judge provided a Robinson direction, highlighting the young age of the complainants and inconsistencies in their evidence. However, the appellant argued that the trial judge should have specified the inconsistencies and addressed the impact of the delay on the reliability of the complainants' testimony and the opportunity for the appellant to explore inconsistencies in their evidence.

The legal issues in the case centered on whether the trial judge's failure to address these matters constituted a miscarriage of justice. The appellant further contended that the trial judge's directions on corroborative evidence were inadequate as they did not specify the inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants and failed to identify the proper use the jury could make of the corroborative evidence for each individual count. Additionally, the appellant argued that section 229B(4) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) is constitutionally invalid as it allows a jury to return a non-unanimous verdict, contrary to section 80 of the Constitution, and removes the requirement for the jury to be satisfied of the material facts on each element of the offence without providing adequate safeguards for a fair trial.

The court examined the trial judge's directions and found no miscarriage of justice in the failure to specify the inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants. The court determined that the trial judge's directions were sufficient to ensure the jury properly considered the evidence. Furthermore, the court held that section 229B(4) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) did not offend the Constitution as it did not deprive the court of defining characteristics that set it apart from other decision-making bodies. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

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.