R v Coyne - [2021] QCA 110

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Coyne [2021] QCA 110

PARTIES:

R
v
COYNE, Andrew Thomas
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 60 of 2020
DC No 217 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Conviction: 24 February 2020 (Burnett DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

18 May 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 August 2020

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and North J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of one count of rape – where the appellant submits the trial judge erred in directing the jury by failing to precisely identify the lies (and the circumstances or events relied on to show that they were admissions) which were relied on by the prosecution as told out of a consciousness of guilt – where the appellant submits that that failure occasioned a miscarriage of justice – where no re-direction was sought at trial – whether, in all the circumstances, there was a miscarriage of justice

Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, cited
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the appellant
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

SOFRONOFF P: I agree with the reasons of Fraser JA and with the order proposed by his Honour.
FRASER JA: The appellant was found guilty by a jury of one count of rape. He appeals against his conviction upon the sole ground that a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by a failure to precisely identify the lies (and the circumstances or events relied on to show that they were admissions) which were relied on by the prosecution as told out of a consciousness of guilt.
No re-direction was sought at the trial. As senior counsel for the appellant acknowledged at the hearing of the appeal, the appellant can rely upon the failure to give the directions the appellant now contends were required only if that failure constituted a miscarriage of justice. No such miscarriage of justice will have occurred unless the appellant establishes both that the directions submitted to have been required should have been given and it is reasonably possible that the failure to give the directions may have affected the verdict.[1] For the following reasons, my conclusion is that, whilst there were deficiencies in the directions about lies told out of a consciousness of guilt, it is not reasonably possible that the failure to give the directions submitted to have been required may have affected the verdict, so that no miscarriage of justice has occurred.
[1]Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1 at [38]; Graham v The Queen (2016) 333 ALR 447 at [51], [60], [69].

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 Coyne

Details

AGLC: R v Coyne [2021] QCA 110
Case: [2021] QCA 110
Decision Date: 18 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal was asked to review the conviction of the appellant, who was found guilty by a jury of one count of rape. The appellant's conviction arose from an incident involving the complainant, who alleged that the appellant raped her. The trial judge directed the jury on the principles of admissions and consciousness of guilt, but the appellant contends that the trial judge failed to precisely identify the lies and the circumstances relied on by the prosecution as admissions. The appellant argues that this failure led to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant did not seek a re-direction at trial.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal centred on whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was flawed and whether that flaw amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the trial judge's direction was insufficiently precise in identifying the lies and circumstances that the prosecution relied on as admissions, and whether this constituted a miscarriage of justice. The Court also had to consider whether the absence of a re-direction at trial impacted the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's direction to the jury, while not perfect, did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the trial judge's direction was sufficient to allow the jury to properly assess the evidence and make a decision based on the whole of the evidence presented. The Court further found that the absence of a re-direction did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial, as the jury was adequately directed on the relevant principles. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

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 Coyne [2021] QCA 110
PARTIES:	R v COYNE, Andrew Thomas (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 60 of 2020 DC No 217 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Conviction: 24 February 2020 (Burnett DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	18 May 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 August 2020
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and North J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of one count of rape – where the appellant submits the trial judge erred in directing the jury by failing to precisely identify the lies (and the circumstances or events relied on to show that they were admissions) which were relied on by the prosecution as told out of a consciousness of guilt – where the appellant submits that that failure occasioned a miscarriage of justice – where no re-direction was sought at trial – whether, in all the circumstances, there was a miscarriage of justice Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, cited Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Copley QC for the appellant S J Farnden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Howden Saggers Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent