R v Davidson

[2000] QCA 39

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Davidson [2000] QCA 39

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

1. 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…