R v CBL; R v BCT

Case [2014] QCA 93

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CBL; R v BCT [2014] QCA 93

PARTIES:

In CA No 76 of 2013:
R
v
CBL
(appellant/applicant)

In CA Nos 80 and 189 of 2013:
R
v
BCT
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 76 of 2013
CA No 80 of 2013
CA No 189 of 2013
DC No 190 of 2012
DC No 757 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against Convictions
Sentence Applications

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 February 2014

JUDGES:

Muir and Gotterson JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

In CA No 76 of 2013:

The appeal against conviction be dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

In CA Nos 80 and 189 of 2013:

1.    The appeal be allowed.

2.    The verdicts be set aside.

3.    A re-trial be ordered.

4.    The application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

In CA No 76 of 2013:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the first appellant was tried with his co-accused, the second appellant – where the complainant was the second appellant’s natural daughter – where the appellants were each tried on three counts rape, two counts grievous bodily harm, three counts assault occasioning bodily harm and one count torture – where the appellants entered pleas of not guilty on all counts – where the appellants were convicted on all counts except two counts assault occasioning bodily harm, one of which was an alternative to rape – where the first appellant participated in a “walk through” interview with police and a recorded interview at the hospital – where the first appellant applied to the primary judge under s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (the Code) to have these interviews rejected – whether the primary judge erred in law in not excluding the interviews

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – OTHER MATTERS – where two applications for a separate trial were brought – where both applications were refused – whether the respective judges that heard the applications erred in failing to order a separate trial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the first appellant brought an application under s 590AA of the Code to exclude evidence of disclosures made by the complainant to her grandparents – where the primary judge declined to make a ruling on the basis that the contingency upon which the Court was being requested to rule may never arise – whether the primary judge erred in failing to exercise discretion to hear the application

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR…

Continue reading R v CBL; R v BCT

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v CBL; R v BCT [2014] QCA 93
Case
[2014] QCA 93
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Two appellants were convicted of multiple serious sexual offences against the second appellant, who was the natural daughter of the first appellant. The appellants were each tried on three counts of rape, two counts of grievous bodily harm, three counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of torture. Both appellants pleaded not guilty to all charges and were convicted on all counts except two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, one of which was an alternative to rape. The first appellant appealed against his convictions and sentence, and the second appellant appealed against his convictions only.

The first appellant contended that the primary judge erred in not excluding two police interviews and evidence of certain disclosures made by the complainant to her grandparents. The first appellant also argued that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by evidence, and that his sentence was manifestly excessive. The second appellant argued that the primary judge should have ordered a separate trial and that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by evidence.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in not excluding the police interviews and the evidence of the complainant’s disclosures. The court also found that the verdict was not unreasonable and was supported by evidence. However, the court found that the primary judge should have ordered a separate trial for the second appellant, as there was a real risk that the joint trial may have been unfair to the second appellant. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the first appellant’s appeal against conviction and refused his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court allowed the second appellant’s appeal, set aside his verdicts and ordered a re-trial. The court also refused the second appellant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

In CA No 76 of 2013:

The appeal against conviction be dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

In CA Nos 80 and 189 of 2013:

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The verdicts be set aside.

3. A re-trial be ordered.

4. The application for leave to appeal against sentence be 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.