R v DBA - [2012] QCA 49

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DBA [2012] QCA 49

PARTIES:

R
v
DBA
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 289 of 2011
DC No 1066 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 March 2012

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, and Daubney and Applegarth JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of rape with circumstances of aggravation, and guilty of three counts of indecent dealing with circumstances of aggravation – where the complainant had two interviews with police, both admitted as preliminary complaint evidence pursuant to s 4A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 – the second interview provided details as to complaints that preceded in time the complaints in the first interview – where criminal proceedings were underway at time of second interview – where appellant argued that second interview was not preliminary complaint evidence – whether the second interview was admissible as preliminary complaint evidence – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32C(a)
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld), s 4A
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21AK, s 93A

R v LSS [2000] 1 Qd R 546; [1998] QCA 303, considered
R v RH [2005] 1 Qd R 180; [2004] QCA 225, considered
R v Riera [2011] QCA 77, considered
Suresh v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 769; [1998] HCA 23, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Copley SC for the appellant
D A Holliday for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: The appellant was found guilty by a jury after a trial in the District Court of one count of rape with circumstances of aggravation and three counts of indecent dealing with circumstances of aggravation. He has appealed against those convictions.

The appellant’s notice of appeal filed on 31 October 2011 relied upon one ground of appeal, that his conviction was caused by a miscarriage of justice by the wrongful admission of certain preliminary complaint evidence. An amended notice of appeal which was filed out of time repeated that ground and added a second ground. At the hearing of the appeal the appellant’s senior counsel disclaimed reliance upon the amended notice of appeal and it was struck out.

Leave was granted to the appellant to amend the ground of appeal so that it provides:

“The ruling that the evidence of [C] was admissible as evidence of preliminary complaint constituted a wrong decision of a question of law”.

It is necessary to give only a very brief summary of the relevant evidence in…

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 DBA

Details

AGLC: R v DBA [2012] QCA 49
Case: [2012] QCA 49
Decision Date: 16 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v DBA involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, who was found guilty of one count of rape with aggravating circumstances and three counts of indecent dealing with aggravating circumstances. The appellant challenged the admission of certain evidence, specifically a second police interview with the complainant, which was admitted as a preliminary complaint under section 4A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978. The appellant argued that the second interview was not admissible as preliminary complaint evidence, leading to an alleged miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the second interview was properly admitted as preliminary complaint evidence and if its admission constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court needed to consider the statutory criteria for admitting preliminary complaint evidence and assess whether the admission of the second interview breached any legal principles, thus leading to an unfair trial.

In its reasoning, the court examined the statutory provisions and case law surrounding preliminary complaint evidence, determining that the second interview met the requirements of section 4A. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in admitting the second interview and that its admission did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the trial judge had carefully considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles appropriately.

No appeal against conviction was allowed, and the appellant's convictions and sentences were upheld. The court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's decision regarding the admission of the second police interview, confirming that it did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v DBA [2012] QCA 49
PARTIES:	R v DBA (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 289 of 2011 DC No 1066 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	16 March 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 March 2012
JUDGES:	Fraser JA, and Daubney and Applegarth JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of rape with circumstances of aggravation, and guilty of three counts of indecent dealing with circumstances of aggravation – where the complainant had two interviews with police, both admitted as preliminary complaint evidence pursuant to s 4A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 – the second interview provided details as to complaints that preceded in time the complaints in the first interview – where criminal proceedings were underway at time of second interview – where appellant argued that second interview was not preliminary complaint evidence – whether the second interview was admissible as preliminary complaint evidence – whether there was a miscarriage of justice Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32C(a) Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld), s 4A Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21AK, s 93A R v LSS [2000] 1 Qd R 546; [1998] QCA 303, considered R v RH [2005] 1 Qd R 180; [2004] QCA 225, considered R v Riera [2011] QCA 77, considered Suresh v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 769; [1998] HCA 23, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Copley SC for the appellant D A Holliday for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent