R v CBR - [2016] QCA 161

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CBR [2016] QCA 161

PARTIES:

R
v
CBR
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 249 of 2015
DC No 386 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 8 October 2015

DELIVERED ON:

17 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2016

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Philippides JA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN FINDINGS OF JURY – where the appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1), and three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 4, 5, 6) – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of wilfully exposing a child under 16 to an indecent image (count 2) and four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 3, 7, 8 and 9) – whether the guilty verdicts on counts 1, 4, 5 and 6 were inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on counts 3, 7, 8 and 9

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1), and three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 4, 5, 6) – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of wilfully exposing a child under 16 to an indecent image (count 2) and four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 3, 7 , 8 and 9) – whether the jury’s verdicts on counts 1, 4, 5 and 6 were unreasonable on the whole of the evidence

Hawi v R (2014) 244 A Crim R 169; [2014] NSWCCA 83, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
R v Thornton (1989) 89 Cr App R 54, cited
R v Wood [1997] Crim LR 229, cited
Stevenson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 222, approved

COUNSEL:

J A Fraser for the appellant
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Dalton J’s reasons for dismissing this appeal against conviction.
PHILIPPIDES JA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Dalton J.
DALTON J: This is an appeal against conviction. There were nine counts before the jury. The jury returned a guilty verdict on four counts and a not guilty verdict on five counts. The first ground of appeal is that the verdicts are inconsistent and logically irreconcilable such that the verdicts of guilty ought to be set aside.
The…

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 CBR

Details

AGLC: R v CBR [2016] QCA 161
Case: [2016] QCA 161
Decision Date: 17 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v CBR, the appellant faced charges related to the abuse of a child, with the jury convicting him on four counts and acquitting him on five others. The accused was found guilty of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1) and three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 4, 5, and 6). However, he was acquitted on one count of wilfully exposing a child under 16 to an indecent image (count 2) and four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 3, 7, 8, and 9). The court's task was to assess whether the verdicts on the guilty counts were inconsistent with those on the acquitted counts, and whether the guilty verdicts were unreasonable in light of the entire evidence presented.

The legal issues at hand revolved around the consistency of the jury's verdicts and the reasonableness of the guilty verdicts, considering the entire body of evidence. The court had to determine if there was a logical inconsistency between the guilty and not guilty findings, and if the guilty verdicts were justified by the evidence. The court examined the evidence and the jury's reasoning to see if the convictions were supported by the facts and whether any errors in the legal process warranted a new trial.

After a detailed examination of the evidence, the court found no logical inconsistency between the jury's verdicts. The court held that the jury's findings on counts 1, 4, 5, and 6 were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court rejected the appeal against conviction, concluding that the verdicts were not unreasonable or unsustainable given the evidence. The reasoning was based on the thorough analysis of the facts and the consistency of the jury's decisions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, affirming the original convictions on counts 1, 4, 5, and 6. The acquittals on counts 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 were upheld, and no new trial was ordered. The decision confirmed the jury's verdicts as reasonable and supported by the evidence, maintaining the original sentence and legal outcomes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

CITATION:	R v CBR [2016] QCA 161
PARTIES:	R v CBR (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 249 of 2015 DC No 386 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 8 October 2015
DELIVERED ON:	17 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2016
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Philippides JA and Dalton J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN FINDINGS OF JURY – where the appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1), and three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 4, 5, 6) – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of wilfully exposing a child under 16 to an indecent image (count 2) and four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 3, 7, 8 and 9) – whether the guilty verdicts on counts 1, 4, 5 and 6 were inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on counts 3, 7, 8 and 9 CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1), and three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 4, 5, 6) – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of wilfully exposing a child under 16 to an indecent image (count 2) and four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 3, 7 , 8 and 9) – whether the jury’s verdicts on counts 1, 4, 5 and 6 were unreasonable on the whole of the evidence Hawi v R (2014) 244 A Crim R 169; [2014] NSWCCA 83, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited R v Thornton (1989) 89 Cr App R 54, cited R v Wood [1997] Crim LR 229, cited Stevenson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 222, approved
COUNSEL:	J A Fraser for the appellant S J Farnden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Howden Saggers Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent