R v Coss - [2013] QCA 156

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Coss [2013] QCA 156

PARTIES:

R
v
COSS, Michael Joseph
(appellant)

FILE NO:

CA No 307 of 2012
DC No 113 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 April 2013

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR CANNOT BE SUPPORTED HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of rape – where there were inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and the accounts given by the complainant to the police and to the preliminary complaint witnesses – where the appellant contends that the complainant’s description of the events constituting count two is implausible – whether verdicts unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

J J Allen, with S Growden, for the appellant
M Cowen for the respondent

SOLICITORS

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with North J's reasons for dismissing this appeal against conviction.

FRASER JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of North J. I agree with those reasons and with the order proposed by his Honour.

NORTH J: The appellant was convicted by a jury upon two counts of rape following a trial in the District Court at Cairns.[1] The sole ground of appeal is that the verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence.[2] The ground of appeal requires the Court to review the whole of the evidence at trial and to make up its own mind whether a jury could reasonably convict the appellant. The respects in which it is submitted the verdicts are unreasonable are[3]:

1. The complainant’s testimony was uncorroborated.
2.There was a long and essentially unexplained delay in making a complaint.
3.There were inconsistencies in the accounts given by the complainant to police and at the trial.
4.There were discrepancies between the accounts given by the complainant to police and at trial and the terms of the preliminary complaints.
5.The description of events constituting count two was highly implausible.
[1]The first count alleged that the appellant put his penis in the mouth of the complainant and the second count alleged carnal knowledge without consent.
[2] Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1).
[3]Appellant outline [9].

The Evidence

Before considering the arguments advanced concerning these…

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 Coss

Details

AGLC: R v Coss [2013] QCA 156
Case: [2013] QCA 156
Decision Date: 21 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Coss, the appellant was convicted in the County Court of Victoria of two counts of rape, and he appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction. The appeal hinged on the contention that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported considering the evidence presented. The crux of the appeal was the credibility of the complainant's evidence, which allegedly contained inconsistencies with her statements to the police and preliminary complaint witnesses. The appellant specifically argued that the complainant's description of the events constituting count two was implausible, suggesting that the jury should not have convicted him based on her testimony.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal revolved around the standard of proof required in criminal cases and the assessment of the reliability of the complainant's evidence. The court needed to determine if the jury's verdict was unreasonable in light of the evidence, and whether the verdict could not be supported based on the inconsistencies highlighted by the appellant. This involved a detailed examination of the complainant's testimony, the statements she made to the police and preliminary complaint witnesses, and the overall weight of the evidence presented at trial.

The Court of Appeal held that despite the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. The court emphasised that it was not its role to re-evaluate the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses but rather to assess whether the jury's verdict was open to them based on the evidence. The inconsistencies did not undermine the overall reliability of the complainant's testimony to the extent that the jury's verdict could be deemed unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the original convictions for two counts of rape were upheld. The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and was adequately supported by the evidence, despite the noted inconsistencies.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Coss [2013] QCA 156
PARTIES:	R v COSS, Michael Joseph (appellant)
FILE NO:	CA No 307 of 2012 DC No 113 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	21 June 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 April 2013
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and North J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR CANNOT BE SUPPORTED HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of rape – where there were inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and the accounts given by the complainant to the police and to the preliminary complaint witnesses – where the appellant contends that the complainant’s description of the events constituting count two is implausible – whether verdicts unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1) Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	J J Allen, with S Growden, for the appellant M Cowen for the respondent
SOLICITORS	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent