R v DBV

Case [2021] QCA 227

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DBV [2021] QCA 227

PARTIES:

R
v
DBV
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 119 of 2020
DC No 136 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 10 June 2020; Date of Sentence: 10 June 2020 (Coker DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

22 October 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 June 2021

JUDGES:

McMurdo and Mullins JJA and North J

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against convictions dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was tried and convicted of 22 sexual offences relating to a child, including one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where the trial judge did not give the jury a final summary of the complainant’s evidence, apart from aspects which were raised in the context of other directions – where the jury did not receive a count by count summary of the evidence relating to each charge – whether the primary judge erred in law in failing to put the case for the accused accurately and fairly to the jury – whether the jurors had a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the evidence to discharge their duty – whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where the defence case suggested that the complainant had a motive to lie – whether the trial judge gave an adequate direction as to the complainant’s motive to lie – whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – COMPLAINTS – ADMISSIBLITY OF DETAILS AND FACT OF COMPLAINT – where the complainant saw a psychologist over five sessions and disclosed aspects of the offending– where the complainant disclosed the circumstances of one offence (count 16) in a session with the psychologist – where, the complainant had disclosed other offending, but not that of count 16, to police the day before she disclosed the circumstances of count 16 to the psychologist – where the complainant disclosed the circumstances of count 16 to police after she had told the psychologist, but on that same day – whether the disclosure of the circumstances of count 16 to the psychologist constitute a preliminary complaint under s 4A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) – whether the psychologist’s evidence in relation to count 16 was admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was tried and convicted of 22 sexual offences relating to a child, including one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where the complainant saw a psychologist over five sessions and disclosed aspects of the offending–…

Continue reading R v DBV

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v DBV [2021] QCA 227
Case
[2021] QCA 227
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v DBV, the appellant, DBV, was convicted of 22 sexual offences against a child, including one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The Court of Appeal was tasked with examining the validity of the convictions and the sentence imposed. The central issues revolved around whether the trial judge erred in not providing the jury with a comprehensive summary of the complainant's evidence, whether there was a misdirection concerning the complainant's potential motive to lie, and if the sentence was excessive.

The court examined whether the trial judge's omissions led to a miscarriage of justice. It was noted that the trial judge did not provide the jury with a full summary of the complainant's evidence, nor did the jury receive a count-by-count summary of the evidence. The court found that while these omissions could have been problematic, the jury was still able to adequately understand the evidence due to the detailed nature of the trial and the comprehensive closing arguments. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge sufficiently addressed the complainant's potential motive to lie, concluding that the directions given were adequate. The court also scrutinised the admissibility of the psychologist's evidence relating to the complainant's disclosures, finding that the evidence was appropriately admitted as a preliminary complaint.

The Court of Appeal concluded that while there were some shortcomings in the trial process, they did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the appeal against the convictions was dismissed. Concerning the sentence, the court found that the 10-year imprisonment term, considering the gravity and duration of the offences, was not manifestly excessive. Thus, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against convictions dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.