R v Davidson - [2000] QCA 300

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Davidson [2000] QCA 300

PARTIES: R
v
DAVIDSON, Bowman Charles
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 369 of 1999
DC No 2878 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON: 28 July 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 12 July 2000

JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Williams J
Joint reasons for judgment of de Jersey CJ and Davies JA; separate reasons of Williams J concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER – JOINT OR SEPARATE TRIAL – GENERALLY

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL PERSONS – appellant was charged jointly with another man and found guilty of two counts of rape and one count of unlawfully confining the complainant in a motor vehicle – application for separate trial by defence counsel was refused – appellant and co-accused did not give evidence at trial – where recorded police interview with co-accused containing inadmissible statements against the appellant was in evidence before the jury – consideration of the principles justifying joint offences to be tried jointly where evidence admissible against one accused is prejudicial to the other – consideration of the role of juries in the criminal justice system and criminal trial directions – whether the learned trial judge erred at law by refusing defence counsel's application for a separate trial – whether the refusal resulted in a miscarriage of justice despite the clear directions in the summing up as to how the evidence may be used by the jury

Criminal Code (Qld), s 606

Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 676, applied
R v Harbach (1973) 6 SASR 427, applied
R v Lewis and Baira [1996] QCA 405; CA No 252, No 253 and No 290 of 1996, 18 October 1996, applied
Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41, considered

COUNSEL: D J Murray for appellant
R G Martin for respondent

SOLICITORS: Ryan & Bosscher (Maroochydore) for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

de JERSEY CJ and DAVIES JA: This is an appeal against a conviction on 24 September last on one count of unlawfully confining the complainant in a motor vehicle against her will and two of rape. The grounds of appeal stated in the notice of appeal are:

"That the learned trial judge erred at law by refusing defence counsel's application for a separate trial.
That the learned trial judge erred at law by not sufficiently warning the jury that matters arising in the police interview with Sandow were not admissible evidence against the appellant.
That the learned trial judge erred at law by refusing defence counsel's application for a jury view of the locking mechanism."

However we were told…

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 Davidson

Details

AGLC: R v Davidson [2000] QCA 300
Case: [2000] QCA 300
Decision Date: 28 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by a man convicted of multiple counts of rape and unlawful confinement against a woman. The appellant was tried jointly with another man, who did not give evidence at the trial. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in refusing an application for a separate trial and whether this refusal resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's counsel argued that the joint trial was unfair due to the admission of prejudicial evidence from a police interview with the co-accused. The court considered the principles justifying joint trials and the role of juries in the criminal justice system. It examined whether the trial judge's refusal to grant a separate trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice, despite clear directions to the jury regarding the use of evidence.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing the application for a separate trial. The principles justifying joint trials were applicable, and the trial judge provided clear directions to the jury on how to consider the evidence. The court found that the appellant's right to a fair trial was not compromised. The jury was properly instructed to disregard any evidence that was not relevant to the appellant's guilt. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld.

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

JERSEY CJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JERSEY CJ

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Davidson [2000] QCA 300
PARTIES:	R v DAVIDSON, Bowman Charles (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 369 of 1999 DC No 2878 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Kingaroy
DELIVERED ON:	28 July 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 July 2000
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Williams J Joint reasons for judgment of de Jersey CJ and Davies JA; separate reasons of Williams J concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER – JOINT OR SEPARATE TRIAL – GENERALLY CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL PERSONS – appellant was charged jointly with another man and found guilty of two counts of rape and one count of unlawfully confining the complainant in a motor vehicle – application for separate trial by defence counsel was refused – appellant and co-accused did not give evidence at trial – where recorded police interview with co-accused containing inadmissible statements against the appellant was in evidence before the jury – consideration of the principles justifying joint offences to be tried jointly where evidence admissible against one accused is prejudicial to the other – consideration of the role of juries in the criminal justice system and criminal trial directions – whether the learned trial judge erred at law by refusing defence counsel's application for a separate trial – whether the refusal resulted in a miscarriage of justice despite the clear directions in the summing up as to how the evidence may be used by the jury Criminal Code (Qld), s 606 Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 676, applied R v Harbach (1973) 6 SASR 427, applied R v Lewis and Baira [1996] QCA 405; CA No 252, No 253 and No 290 of 1996, 18 October 1996, applied Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41, considered
COUNSEL:	D J Murray for appellant R G Martin for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher (Maroochydore) for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent