R v D'Arcy

Case [2001] QCA 325

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v D'Arcy [2001] QCA 325

PARTIES:

R
v
D'ARCY, William Theodore
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 336 of 2000
SC No 97 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 August 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 May 2001

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Chesterman J concurring as to the orders made, McPherson JA dissenting in part
ORDER:

1.  Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.  (a)  Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

(b)  Appeal allowed.
(c)  Substitute a term of imprisonment of 10 years on counts 13, 16 and 18.
(d)  Otherwise confirm the sentences imposed at first instance.
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT - where appellant convicted of multiple indecent dealing and rape offences – where sentenced to 14 years imprisonment – where appellant appeals against conviction and sentence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE - whether trial judge erred in refusing an application under s 47(1) Jury Act 1995 (Qld) to question jurors as to impartiality – whether this refusal deprived the appellant of a fair trial – where widespread media coverage of the appellant’s activities as a member of parliament – where to raise such matters before the jury would emphasise these prejudicial matters – where appropriate direction – where prejudicial pre-trial publicity had no relevance to the actual charges – proper exercise of discretion – no miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - whether trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury as to the need to consider the evidence on each count separately – where directions given were appropriate and adequate – whether this direction was negated by a subsequent direction as to the absence of any suggestion of collusion between the complainants – where trial judge was merely stating an objective fact that he considered relevant – where earlier direction given that questions of fact were entirely for the jury to determine – comments did not amount to an appellable error

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EXPRESSION OF JUDGES OWN OPINION – whether trial judge erred in pointing out that each complainant had given an explanation for the lack of fresh complaint – whether this comment had the effect of reversing the onus of proof – no reversal of onus when read in context the judge was entitled to make such comments to maintain balance

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION…

Continue reading R v D'Arcy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v D'Arcy [2001] QCA 325
Case
[2001] QCA 325
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v D'Arcy, the appellant was convicted of multiple offences of indecent dealing and rape and was subsequently sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. The appellant appealed against both the conviction and the sentence, raising various grounds of appeal including issues with the trial judge's directions to the jury, the refusal to question jurors regarding impartiality, and the length of the sentence. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's conviction and sentence were just and whether any errors by the trial judge amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury, including whether the judge had adequately directed the jury to consider each count separately, whether he had expressed his own opinion on the evidence, and if he had sufficiently warned the jury about the dangers of convicting due to the delay in complaints being made. The court found that the trial judge's directions were appropriate and adequate, and that any comments made did not amount to an error that would cause a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court found that the refusal to question jurors about impartiality was a proper exercise of discretion, given the extensive pre-trial publicity which would have only been emphasised by such questioning.

The court also considered the sentence imposed on the appellant, finding that while the sentencing judge had considered the mitigating factors, he had not given adequate weight to the references tendered on behalf of the appellant, nor to the character evidence, delay in prosecution, and the appellant's ill health. The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive and granted leave to appeal against the sentence, reducing the term of imprisonment on certain counts.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction and to allow the appeal against sentence in part. The sentence was reduced to 10 years on certain counts, while the rest of the sentences were confirmed as imposed at first instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. (a) Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

(b) Appeal allowed.

(c) Substitute a term of imprisonment of 10 years on counts 13, 16 and 18.

(d) Otherwise confirm the sentences imposed at first instance.

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.