R v CCM - [2019] QCA 301

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CCM [2019] QCA 301

PARTIES:

R
v
CCM
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 68 of 2019
DC No 1828 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 14 March 2019 (Moynihan QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Henry J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of rape and acquitted of two counts of rape – where the counts of which the appellant was acquitted occurred in a separate episode, and there were differences between this episode and the counts of which he was convicted – where the appellant was further convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice, but acquitted of assault occasioning bodily harm – where the assault was said to have occurred on the same day as, and in relation to, the attempt to pervert the course of justice – whether the differing verdicts can be explained by the jury holding a reasonable doubt as to some of the counts but holding no such doubt as to others – whether the verdicts were inconsistent

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the complainant was the appellant’s de facto partner and complained to police following their separation – where after separation and prior to making a complaint the complainant sent text messages asking the appellant to return to the family home – where the appellant did not give evidence at his trial and the only two witnesses called were the complainant and her brother – where the appellant took issue with the quality of the evidence, including the supposed implausibility of the complainant wanting the appellant to return home if the alleged rapes had occurred – whether on the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the charges – whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence

GAX v The Queen (2017) 91 ALJR 698; [2017] HCA 25, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, applied
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

J Lodziak for the appellant
D Balic for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Henry J and the order proposed by his Honour.

McMURDO JA: I agree with…

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 CCM

Details

AGLC: R v CCM [2019] QCA 301
Case: [2019] QCA 301
Decision Date: 20 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted in the Supreme Court of two counts of rape and one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice, but was acquitted of two counts of rape and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. The appellant appealed against his convictions, arguing that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the differing verdicts could be explained by the jury having a reasonable doubt as to some of the counts but holding no such doubt as to others. The Court also had to consider whether the verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the differing verdicts could be explained by the jury holding a reasonable doubt as to some of the counts but holding no such doubt as to others. The Court found that the complainant was credible and that her evidence was consistent and corroborated by other evidence. The Court held that the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence and to reject the appellant's evidence, which was not given. The Court held that the verdicts were not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the jury's verdicts were open to them on the whole of the evidence and that the verdicts were not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. The Court found that the evidence supported the appellant's convictions and that the acquittals were not inconsistent with the convictions. The Court held that the appellant's convictions were properly upheld and that the appeal should be dismissed.

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 CCM [2019] QCA 301
PARTIES:	R v CCM (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 68 of 2019 DC No 1828 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 14 March 2019 (Moynihan QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	20 December 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 October 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Henry J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of rape and acquitted of two counts of rape – where the counts of which the appellant was acquitted occurred in a separate episode, and there were differences between this episode and the counts of which he was convicted – where the appellant was further convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice, but acquitted of assault occasioning bodily harm – where the assault was said to have occurred on the same day as, and in relation to, the attempt to pervert the course of justice – whether the differing verdicts can be explained by the jury holding a reasonable doubt as to some of the counts but holding no such doubt as to others – whether the verdicts were inconsistent CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the complainant was the appellant’s de facto partner and complained to police following their separation – where after separation and prior to making a complaint the complainant sent text messages asking the appellant to return to the family home – where the appellant did not give evidence at his trial and the only two witnesses called were the complainant and her brother – where the appellant took issue with the quality of the evidence, including the supposed implausibility of the complainant wanting the appellant to return home if the alleged rapes had occurred – whether on the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the charges – whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence GAX v The Queen (2017) 91 ALJR 698; [2017] HCA 25, cited MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, applied MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	J Lodziak for the appellant D Balic for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent