R v CCX

Case [2022] QCA 260

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CCX [2022] QCA 260

PARTIES:

R
v
CCX
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 230 of 2021
DC No 1869 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 17 September 2021 (Rosengren DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2022

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Boddice and Kelly JJ

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1), two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under care (counts 2 and 3), three counts of rape (counts 4 to 7) – where the appellant was convicted on counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 but acquitted on counts 5 and 7 – where the appellant appealed their conviction on the grounds that the guilty verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence – where the appeal was advanced as an inconsistent verdicts ground on the basis that the likely explanation for the acquittals was inherent concern about the complainants credibility which should logically have extended to each count on the indictment – whether the verdicts are inconsistent

Eade v The King (1924) 34 CLR 154; [1924] HCA 9, cited
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1994] HCA 63, cited
R v ACK [2000] NSWCCA 180, cited
R v CX[2006] QCA 409, cited
R v JJT (Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 3 December 1997, Unreported), cited
R v KET [1998] VSCA 73, cited
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, cited
R v McK [1986] 1 Qd R 476, cited
R v Miller (2021) 8 QR 221; [2021] QCA 126, cited
R v SBL[2009] QCA 130, cited
R v Smillie (2002) 134 A Crim R 100; [2002] QCA 341, cited
Williams v The Queen [2000] TASSC 182, cited

COUNSEL:

S C Holt KC with M J Jackson for the appellant
C W Wallis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. MULLINS P:  I agree with Kelly J.

  2. BODDICE J:  I agree with Kelly J.

  3. KELLY J:  The appellant was tried in the District Court on an indictment which contained seven counts.  Count 1 involved the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child.  Counts 2 and 3 involved the offences of indecent treatment of a child, under 16 and under care.  Counts 4 to 7 involved rape offences.  The appellant was convicted on…

Continue reading R v CCX

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v CCX [2022] QCA 260
Case
[2022] QCA 260
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v CCX, the appellant, CCX, was convicted of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under care, and three counts of rape. However, CCX was acquitted on two of the rape counts. CCX appealed against the conviction, arguing that the guilty verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported given the evidence. The appeal was advanced on the basis that the verdicts were inconsistent, suggesting that the jury's concerns about the credibility of the complainants should logically have extended to each count on the indictment.

The court needed to determine whether the verdicts were indeed inconsistent and, if so, whether this inconsistency was so significant that it rendered the guilty verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court examined the nature and extent of the inconsistencies, the reasons for the acquittals, and the overall weight of the evidence. The court considered whether the jury could have rationally arrived at the verdicts given the evidence and whether the inconsistencies were so significant as to undermine the safety and satisfaction of the guilty verdicts.

The court held that the jury was entitled to accept the complainants' evidence in part and reject it in part, as they did. The court found that the inconsistencies in the verdicts did not necessarily indicate that the jury had doubts about the credibility of the complainants as a whole, but rather that they had doubts about the credibility of the complainants in relation to specific counts. The court held that the jury's verdicts were open to them and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court found that the guilty verdicts were safe and satisfactory and that the acquittals did not render the guilty verdicts unreasonable.

The appeal is dismissed. The convictions stand.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is 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.