R v DBF (No 1) - [2013] QCA 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DBF (No 1) [2013] QCA 244

PARTIES:

R
v
DBF
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 167 of 2012
DC No 135 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

30 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

That the appeal be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – GENERALLY – where appellant was found guilty of, inter alia, maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where evidence of an uncharged act was led during the trial from complainant’s sister – where evidence of the uncharged act was partially inconsistent with complainant’s evidence – whether such evidence was probative – whether such evidence was admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – application of test in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E (1)

BBH v The Queen (2012) 245 CLR 499; [2012] HCA 9, followed
M v Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, considered
R v B [1989] 2 Qd R 343, followed
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
T A Fuller QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The appellant's first ground of appeal against conviction is that the convictions are unsafe and unsatisfactory, that is, in terms of s 668E(1) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) they are "unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence". This involves a consideration of whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of all counts: M v Queen;[1] SKA v The Queen.[2]
[1](1994) 181 CLR 487, 493-495.
[2](2011) 243 CLR 400, [11]-[12].

The complainant gave evidence that the appellant committed all the offences of which he was convicted. The complainant's evidence received compelling general support from the appellant's recorded statement in his telephone conversation with the complainant on 23 March 2011. Her evidence was also supported by the evidence of her sister, T, of sexual activity between the appellant, the complainant and T. There was no reason for the jury to conclude that the complainant and T were colluding. Douglas J's review of the evidence at trial demonstrates that it was well open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty on each count. This ground of appeal is not made out.

I also agree with his Honour's reasons for rejecting the appellant's second ground of appeal. T's evidence of an episode…

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 DBF (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v DBF (No 1) [2013] QCA 244
Case: [2013] QCA 244
Decision Date: 30 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v DBF (No 1) involved the appellant who was found guilty of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The dispute reached the court where the appellant contested the admissibility of certain evidence and the overall reasonableness of the verdict. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the evidence of an uncharged act, introduced by the complainant's sister, was admissible and probative, and whether the verdict was unreasonable considering the evidence presented. The court also needed to apply the test for assessing the reasonableness of the verdict as articulated in M v The Queen.

The court found that the evidence of the uncharged act, while partially inconsistent with the complainant's account, was nevertheless relevant and probative as it corroborated the complainant's testimony and demonstrated a pattern of behaviour. This evidence was therefore deemed admissible under the rules of evidence. Furthermore, the court applied the test from M v The Queen and concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsafe. The evidence, when considered as a whole, sufficiently supported the findings of the trial judge.

Given the above reasoning, the court dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld as the court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's decision. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, maintaining the original verdict and sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the appeal be 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 DBF (No 1) [2013] QCA 244
PARTIES:	R v DBF (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 167 of 2012 DC No 135 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	30 August 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 July 2013
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	That the appeal be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – GENERALLY – where appellant was found guilty of, inter alia, maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where evidence of an uncharged act was led during the trial from complainant’s sister – where evidence of the uncharged act was partially inconsistent with complainant’s evidence – whether such evidence was probative – whether such evidence was admissible CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – application of test in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E (1) BBH v The Queen (2012) 245 CLR 499; [2012] HCA 9, followed M v Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, considered R v B [1989] 2 Qd R 343, followed SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf T A Fuller QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent