R v DBF (No 2) - [2013] QCA 245

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DBF (No 2) [2013] QCA 245

PARTIES:

R
v
DBF
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 197 of 2012
DC No 286 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 lead 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)

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". The resolution of that question involves a consideration of whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt on each charge: 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. Her evidence received compelling general support from the evidence of her mother that the complainant showed her a letter from the appellant. The mother recognised the appellant's handwriting. She saw only the first paragraph before the appellant snatched the letter which stated: "I don't care, you are my daughter. I have dreams, sexual dreams to make love to you." He ripped up the letter and threw it in the bin. When the mother tried to retrieve it, "he ripped it up even more."[3] The guilty verdicts are not, as alleged in the notice of appeal, "unsafe and unsatisfactory." The evidence of the complainant's sister, A, also supported the complainant's evidence. A recounted an episode of sexual activity between the appellant, the complainant and A. She also said that, unknown to the…

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 2)

Details

AGLC: R v DBF (No 2) [2013] QCA 245
Case: [2013] QCA 245
Decision Date: 30 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, DBF, was found guilty of multiple charges including maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court. The core of the dispute revolved around the admissibility of evidence regarding an uncharged act of the appellant, presented by the complainant's sister during the trial. This evidence was partly inconsistent with the complainant's testimony. The appellant contested the admissibility of this evidence, arguing it was neither probative nor relevant to the charges at hand.

The central legal issues the court had to address were the relevance and admissibility of the uncharged act evidence, and whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable considering the evidence presented. The court considered the established principles concerning the admissibility of similar fact evidence in criminal trials and assessed whether the evidence in question met the criteria for admissibility under the law. Additionally, the court had to determine if the verdict was unreasonable by applying the test outlined in M v The Queen.

The court found that the evidence of the uncharged act was relevant and admissible, as it had a probative value in establishing the appellant's propensity towards engaging in sexual activity with children. The inconsistencies between the sister's and the complainant's testimonies were deemed to be minor and did not undermine the overall reliability of the evidence. Furthermore, the court held that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld.

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 2) [2013] QCA 245
PARTIES:	R v DBF (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 197 of 2012 DC No 286 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 lead 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) 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