R v Crooks

Case [1999] QCA 194

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL  99.194

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No.  483 of 1998

Brisbane

[R v.  Crooks]

THE QUEEN

v.

TREVOR IVAN CROOKS
  Appellant

McMurdo P

McPherson JA

Atkinson J

Judgment delivered 28 May 1999

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:     CRIMINAL LAW - rape - admissibility of evidence - whether video of policy interview should have been admitted into  evidence - right to silence - whether answers to questions freely given - whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

Criminal Code (Qld) s.632

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
Clarke (1997) 97 ACrimR 414
Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1
Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501
R v Ewanchuk (unreported, Supreme Court of Canada, 25 February 1999)
R v Hart [1979] QdR 8
R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133
R v Swaffield (1988) 72 ALJR 339
Robinson (1996) 89 ACrimR 42
Van der Meer v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 656

Counsel:Mr P Callaghan for the appellant

Mr M Byrne for the respondent

Solicitors:Legal Aid Office Queensland for the appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions Queensland for the respondent

Hearing Date:            27 April 1999

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McMURDO P

Judgment delivered 28 May 1999

  1. I have had the benefit of reading the reasons for judgment of Atkinson J with which I am in agreement. I wish, however, to add the following comments.

  2. The first ground of appeal is that the learned trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the video tape of an interview between the police and the appellant. 

  3. The appellant was 30 years of age.  It appears from the interview that the appellant may not have been of completely normal intelligence. Later when the appellant gave evidence in the trial, he said that he had attended the Special Education Unit at Proserpine State School and left High School halfway through Grade 9, more or less at the bottom of his class: he is able to read and write to a certain extent but his spelling and handwriting is "very atrocious". This may be the reason why, rather unusually, a 30 year old man was interviewed, at his request, in the presence of his father.  There was, however, no material before the judge on the voir dire to suggest that the appellant was intellectually handicapped.  The appellant did not give evidence on the voir dire. We have listened to and viewed the recorded interview and in my view the appellant's answers appear responsive and freely given.  Neither the interview itself nor any other evidence raised on the voir dire suggest that the interview was involuntary in that the appellant was overborne or intimidated or that there was any unfairness in the conduct of the police investigation such as would invoke public policy considerations necessitating…

Continue reading R v Crooks

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Crooks [1999] QCA 194
Case
[1999] QCA 194
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crooks, the appellant, Trevor Crooks, was appealing against his conviction for the rape of Elizabeth Armstrong. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where Atkinson J dismissed the appeal, a decision with which the other judges concurred. The central issue for the court was whether the trial judge had erred in allowing the admission of a video-taped police interview of the appellant. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have excluded the video evidence due to the circumstances under which it was obtained.

The court considered the appellant's argument that the video evidence should have been excluded as it was obtained in circumstances that violated his rights. The court noted that the appellant was informed of his right to silence and his right not to answer questions, yet he chose to proceed with the interview. Despite his initial refusal to participate fully in the interview, he later agreed to answer questions about whether he knew the complainant. The court found that the appellant was aware of his rights and chose to participate in the interview, albeit minimally. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's decision to admit the video evidence, as the appellant's rights were not infringed in a manner that would render the evidence inadmissible.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The court did not see fit to make any further orders in relation to the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

I agree with the reasons of Atkinson J for dismissing this appeal.REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - ATKINSON J Elizabeth Armstrong lived alone in a boarding house in Proserpine. Mrs Armstrong is a woman in her fifties who is on a disability support pension as she is an epileptic and a diabetic, and has thyroid deficiency and suffers from depression. The appellant, Trevor Crooks, lived a block and a half away in a flat. One night Mrs Armstrong was having a cup of tea with Mr Carvolth, who also lived in the boarding house when the appellant, who knew Mr Carvolth because they both worked at the mill, stopped by. Mr Crooks told Mrs Armstrong that he would like to write to her son with whom he had been at school and they left Mr Carvolth’s room to go to her room so that she could get her son’s address to give to him. What then occurred was the subject of different versions by the appellant and Mrs Armstrong. Mrs Armstrong’s evidence, which was accepted by the jury, was that she was raped by the appellant in spite of her clearly stated vocal protests. The appellant’s version, which was not accepted, was that she propositioned him and forced sexual intercourse upon him. After Mrs Armstrong made a complaint to the police, the appellant was interviewed. A field tape of the interview at his home was excluded by the trial judge in the exercise of his discretion. However the learned trial judge did not accede to the defence submission that a video tape of an interview at the police station should be excluded. The first ground of appeal in this matter is that the trial judge erred in the exercise of his discretion in not refusing to allow the admission of the video tape. The police interview with Mr Crooks was video-taped at the police station. His father was present at his request. He was told that he was going to be asked some questions about a complaint they had received from an Elizabeth Ellen Armstrong at Room 18 at the Anchor Lodge in Proserpine, and her allegation that Mr Crooks went into her room on Thursday night at about 8:30pm and had sex with her against her will. His reply was:“I don’t think so mate. I wouldn’t even know who the person is.”Mr Crooks was then given a warning by the police drawing attention to his right to silence in the following terms:“Before I go any into any of the - further interview, I’ll just - I’ll warn you, you don’t have to partake in this interview if you don’t want to, okay, and you don’t have to say anything you don’t want to ‘cause everything you do say is being taped and may later be used as evidence, okay. Do you understand you don’t have to say anything if you don’t want to? Okay. So, are you still prepared to proceed to with interview?”Mr Crooks replied:“No, because I never done nothing, so I’m not going to carry on.”The police then proceeded to take formal details such as his name, address, date of birth and Mr Crooks then complained about people ringing him at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning with the wrong number. The police officer then asked:“Well, are you prepared to tell me whether you know this woman or not?”Mr Crooks agreed he would. He said:“Yes, I’ll say that, but I don’t know her at all. ... I wouldn’t even have a clue who she is.”He denied knowing her son from school and specified the names of the persons at the Anchor that he knew and that they did not include Mrs Armstrong. He repeatedly denied knowing her. The interview was terminated shortly after that.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.