R v Collins - [2018] QCA 277

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Collins [2018] QCA 277

PARTIES:

R
v
COLLINS, John
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 209 of 2014
DC No 1017 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 15 July 2014; Date of Sentence: 16 July 2014 (Shanahan DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

16 October 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 August 2018

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides JJA and Flanagan J

ORDERS:

1.   Application to adduce evidence refused.

2.   Appeal against conviction dismissed.

3.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

4.   The appeal be allowed.

5.   The sentences imposed in respect of counts 8 and 9 are varied to the extent of reducing the period of seven years and eight months to a period of seven years in each case.

6.   The sentences imposed on 16 July 2014 are otherwise affirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of nine counts of sexual offences against three women – where each of the three complainants gave evidence that they had responded to an advertisement placed by the appellant for a job as a nanny aboard his yacht, were drugged and then awoke to find either the appellant engaging in sexual intercourse with them or was rendered unable to resist being raped – where the aftermath of the assaults was different for each complainant, except that each of them spent time on the yacht and had difficulty escaping – where the similarities in the administration of a stupefying drug in order to commit an indictable offence caused the offences for all three complainants to be heard in one trial – where the appellant submitted the evidence of the complainants does not accord with logic or common sense, is fundamentally flawed and implausible particularly in the sense that each of them would remain in his presence after what was said to have been a drug-induced rape, and that the three complainants were liars – whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory as being unsupported by the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – COLLUSION OF WITNESSES – where the appellant contended that the complainants had brought their complaints because of “ulterior and untoward motives”, referring to the payment of victims of crime compensation to at least two of the complainants – where the appellant submitted that the complainants had concocted three similar but false accounts – where the complainants were asked whether they had contact with, knew of, or met the others before telling the police or anyone else what had happened – where each said they had not – whether the learned trial judge properly “raised the question of the possibility of collusion” before the jury

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where 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 Collins

Details

AGLC: R v Collins [2018] QCA 277
Case: [2018] QCA 277
Decision Date: 16 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Collins, the appellant was convicted of nine counts of sexual offences against three separate women. The trial judge found the appellant guilty, and he appealed against both his conviction and his sentence. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence provided by the complainants was sufficient to support the verdict, particularly in light of the appellant's submission that the evidence was implausible and suggested collusion among the witnesses. Another significant issue was whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the possibility of media reports influencing their decision, and if this constituted a misdirection that warranted a new trial.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented by each complainant, noting the similarities in their accounts of being drugged and assaulted by the appellant. The court determined that despite the appellant's assertions, the jury was properly directed on the matters of evidence reliability and potential media influence, and thus found no misdirection warranting a new trial. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence, though harrowing, was sufficient to support the verdict. The court also found no basis for the appellant's claim of collusion, as each complainant testified that they had no contact with the others before reporting their experiences. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

Regarding the appeal against the sentence, the court acknowledged that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's mental health issues and age in determining the head sentence. However, the court found that the sentencing judge had not adequately taken into account the period of pre-sentence custody when setting the overall sentence. As a result, the court allowed the appeal against the sentence and reduced the sentences for counts 8 and 9 from seven years and eight months to seven years each. All other sentences were affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application to adduce evidence refused.

2. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

3. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

4. The appeal be allowed.

5. The sentences imposed in respect of counts 8 and 9 are varied to the extent of reducing the period of seven years and eight months to a period of seven years in each case.

6. The sentences imposed on 16 July 2014 are otherwise affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

The application to adduce further evidence should be refused.Background Each of the three complainants gave evidence that they had responded to an advertisement placed by the appellant, for a job as a nanny aboard his yacht. WEM responded in January 1987, PFM in around 1990 or 1991 and DAN in December 1999. Each of the complainants gave evidence that they drank some alcohol which the appellant provided. Each of them was drugged and either awoke to find the appellant engaging in sexual intercourse with them[4] or was rendered unable to resist being raped.[5][4]In the case of WEM and PFM.[5]In the case of DAN. The aftermath of the assaults was different for each complainant, except that each of them spent time on the yacht and had difficulty escaping. The similarities in the administration of a stupefying drug in order to commit an indictable offence caused the offences for all three complainants to be heard in the one trial.Evidence of WEM WEM said she had just turned 21 when she responded to an advertisement to be a governess nanny aboard the appellant’s yacht. The advertisement was for someone to look after the appellant’s son, who was doing year six studies. She was driven to the yacht by her cousin, WJR. There she met the appellant and his son. They spoke about the job and what the son’s requirements were. In the course of getting to know the son, the son took her for a short sail in his sabot, and then they returned to the yacht. Once back aboard the yacht the three of them had dinner together, in the course of which WEM had a glass of wine. The appellant poured her a second drink as a result of which WEM felt “really groggy, dizzy, disorientated … like, having come out of an anaesthetic, drugged”.[6][6]Appeal Book (AB) 28. WEM said that she had never felt that way before, nor since. She thought she was feeling seasickness and decided to have a shower and go to bed. The appellant told her that the main shower was broken and that she would have to use the shower in the main cabin (which was his cabin). While she was having a shower the appellant came in and put his arms around her. She told him to stop and to get out but he refused, putting his hands on her breasts, then moving them down her body and between her legs. Having done that WEM said that the appellant parted her labia.[7] During this time she was telling him to stop, but he refused.[7]AB 29. The next memory she had was of lying on the bed, with the appellant on top of her. His hands were on her shoulders pinning her down and he was having sex with her. She was, at that time, “feeling disgusted, groggy, sick, repulsed”. She repeatedly asked him to stop but he did not.[8][8]AB 30. When she woke up she was beside the appellant on his bed. She crawled over him to get off the bed, went to the shower and then retreated to the far end of the yacht, locking herself in a cabin there. By mid-morning she was still in the cabin and the appellant was outside the door telling her that she could not stay in there. Eventually she came out, but was still feeling quite ill. At that time there was another woman and her daughter aboard the yacht, for the purpose of the daughter being interviewed for the job. She said that the appellant introduced her to those people as his girlfriend and:“I was still … feeling sick. I didn’t know what to do. He had his hands and that all over me. I was just completely – I’ve never been in a situation like that. I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t know how to handle it. I was unequipped.”[9][9]AB 32 ll 7-10.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Ground 7 raised a failure by the learned trial judge to direct the jury in relation to media reports. This concerned an occasion when it became apparent that a news reporter had reported in print and online media, contrary to restrictions imposed on the trial. The contention was that the content of the reported material could reasonably have had a prejudicial effect on the trial.Application to adduce new evidence The appellant applied for leave to adduce new or fresh evidence. As they were listed in the application what was sought to be adduced fell into three categories. The first was statements in oral evidence given at the committal.[2] The second was referred to simply as “statements in oral evidence” of nine witnesses. The third was the “private doctor report” in respect of the complainant DAN.[2]Five items in the list fell into this category. In the course of the appeal each of the items was examined individually. In the case of the five items consisting of statements in oral evidence at the committal, the appellant accepted that it was evidence known to his legal team during the trial, and that they made a decision not to use it. In respect of eight out of the remaining ten which consisted of statements in oral evidence of witnesses, the appellant confirmed that they were all in the category of evidence which the appellant’s legal team had prior to the trial, and they chose not to use them. In a somewhat separate category were two items, consisting of the statement in oral evidence of the complainant in a previous trial[3] and that of the complainant’s mother. Once again, the appellant accepted that this was evidence in the possession of his legal team at the trial the subject of this appeal, and his legal team made a choice as to whether to use it or not.[3]The first trial in time. In a separate category was the item consisting of “private doctor report” in respect of the complainant DAN. At the hearing of the appeal the Court reserved the question of its admissibility. Having reviewed its contents, the report is not admissible and would not have been admissible at the trial. Its contents do not persuade me that there would have been any utility in attempting to tender the report, or use it in cross-examination. None of the evidence sought to be adduced in the application falls into the category of fresh evidence. The application to adduce further evidence should be refused.Background Each of the three complainants gave evidence that they had responded to an advertisement placed by the appellant, for a job as a nanny aboard his yacht. WEM responded in January 1987, PFM in around 1990 or 1991 and DAN in December 1999. Each of the complainants gave evidence that they drank some alcohol which the appellant provided. Each of them was drugged and either awoke to find the appellant engaging in sexual intercourse with them[4] or was rendered unable to resist being raped.[5][4]In the case of WEM and PFM.[5]In the case of DAN. The aftermath of the assaults was different for each complainant, except that each of them spent time on the yacht and had difficulty escaping.

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 Collins [2018] QCA 277
PARTIES:	R v COLLINS, John (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 209 of 2014 DC No 1017 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 15 July 2014; Date of Sentence: 16 July 2014 (Shanahan DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	16 October 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 August 2018
JUDGES:	Morrison and Philippides JJA and Flanagan J
ORDERS:	1. Application to adduce evidence refused. 2. Appeal against conviction dismissed. 3. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. 4. The appeal be allowed. 5. The sentences imposed in respect of counts 8 and 9 are varied to the extent of reducing the period of seven years and eight months to a period of seven years in each case. 6. The sentences imposed on 16 July 2014 are otherwise affirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of nine counts of sexual offences against three women – where each of the three complainants gave evidence that they had responded to an advertisement placed by the appellant for a job as a nanny aboard his yacht, were drugged and then awoke to find either the appellant engaging in sexual intercourse with them or was rendered unable to resist being raped – where the aftermath of the assaults was different for each complainant, except that each of them spent time on the yacht and had difficulty escaping – where the similarities in the administration of a stupefying drug in order to commit an indictable offence caused the offences for all three complainants to be heard in one trial – where the appellant submitted the evidence of the complainants does not accord with logic or common sense, is fundamentally flawed and implausible particularly in the sense that each of them would remain in his presence after what was said to have been a drug-induced rape, and that the three complainants were liars – whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory as being unsupported by the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – COLLUSION OF WITNESSES – where the appellant contended that the complainants had brought their complaints because of “ulterior and untoward motives”, referring to the payment of victims of crime compensation to at least two of the complainants – where the appellant submitted that the complainants had concocted three similar but false accounts – where the complainants were asked whether they had contact with, knew of, or met the others before telling the police or anyone else what had happened – where each said they had not – whether the learned trial judge properly “raised the question of the possibility of collusion” before the jury CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the…