R v DCN - [2025] QCA 62

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v DCN [2025] QCA 62

PARTIES:

R
v
DCN
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 142 of 2023
DC No 336 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 27 July 2023 (Devereaux SC CJDC)

DELIVERED ON:

7 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Boddice JA and Martin SJA

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty of three counts of rape of his biological daughter – where the complainant was interviewed by police after she underwent a termination of pregnancy when she was 17 years old – where the complainant asserted that she became pregnant after a casual sexual encounter or was raped by one of her brothers – where the complainant explicitly excluded the appellant as the offender – where the complainant gave evidence at trial that those statements made to police were lies and that she was raped by the appellant – where there was some independent DNA evidence and other witnesses’ evidence that supported the complainant’s evidence – whether the verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 4 were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence adduced in the trial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was found guilty of three counts of rape (counts 1, 2 and 4) – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm (count 3) – where there was independent DNA evidence and other witnesses’ evidence relating to counts 1, 2 and 4 that supported the complainant’s evidence – where there was a lack of evidence from any witness other than the complainant regarding count 3 – where there was a difference in the quality of evidence between the evidence for count 3 and the evidence for counts 1, 2 and 4 – whether the acquittal on count 3 was reconcilable with the guilty verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 4

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was found guilty of three counts of rape following a trial – where the offending was aggravated by the appellant being the biological father of the complainant and the offending was committed over a period of about two years – where the appellant showed no remorse – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
R v HAD[2006] QCA 464, cited
R v LJ[2004] QCA 114, cited
R v VN[2023] QCA 220, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared…

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 DCN

Details

AGLC: R v DCN [2025] QCA 62
Case: [2025] QCA 62
Decision Date: 7 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v DCN, the appellant, DCN, was found guilty of three counts of rape of his biological daughter and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his convictions and sentence. The central issue for the court was whether the convictions were unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Another issue considered was whether the acquittal on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm was reconcilable with the guilty verdicts on the other counts.

The court examined the evidence, including the complainant's testimony, which shifted from initially denying the appellant's involvement to asserting that he was the offender. The court noted that the complainant had provided names of other potential fathers to police, and there was no DNA evidence to exclude these individuals. The court also considered the independent DNA evidence and other witnesses' evidence that supported the complainant's account. The court concluded that the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence and reject the appellant's denials. The court further found that the acquittal on count 3 did not render the convictions on counts 1, 2 and 4 unreasonable, as the evidence supporting the convictions was stronger and more consistent. Regarding the sentence, the court found that it was not manifestly excessive, given the severity of the offences and the lack of remorse shown by the appellant.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appellant's convictions for the three counts of rape were upheld, and the sentence imposed was considered appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction 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

The grounds of appeal are:1.The convictions on counts 1, 2 and 4 were unreasonable and not supported by the whole of the evidence or were otherwise unsafe and unsatisfactory.2.The jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on counts 1, 2 and 4 that the appellant was the biological father of the foetus terminated by medical intervention on about 21 December 2017 at the direction of the complainant because, either individually or cumulatively:a.the complainant had given a number of names of the father of the child, including a half-sibling AB and another alleged as the offender;b.the DNA expert Mr Nurthen could not exclude the half-sibling, AB, being the biological father of the terminated foetus, because AB had not been DNA tested and no comparison was made between his DNA and that of the terminated foetus.3.The convictions on counts 1, 2 and 4 are unsafe and unsatisfactory in that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had raped the complainant as alleged because:a.the complainant had provided to police a number of alleged offenders as the father of the terminated foetus which gave rise to count 2;b.the witness Mr R gave evidence as to the smell of fresh “semen” on the complainant as she walked on the way to the bathroom/toilet but the evidence shows that the closest point to the appellant between the bedroom door and the bathroom would have been when the complainant first exited the bedroom – lead as discreditable conduct/uncharged act;c.the complainant gave evidence that she had no-one to tell about the alleged abuse, but the evidence showed that the complainant had:i.been able to travel from Palm Island to Townsville to relatives when she wanted;ii.her own mobile phone;iii.numerous relatives visited her in hospital in Townsville when she had the termination of the foetus in December 2017;d.the jury acquitted the appellant of count 3 – assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed.4.The sentence was, in the circumstances, manifestly excessive.Summary of the evidence The complainant was born in 2000. Her biological mother’s name is shown on her birth certificate (exhibit 3) but no father’s name was recorded. Until 2010, she lived as part of the family for whom the pseudonym of Foster will be used. The complainant called Mr and Mrs Foster her Mum and Dad. Mr and Mrs Foster separated in 2010 and the complainant stayed with Mrs Foster. Mr Foster moved to Palm Island. The complainant’s evidence in chief included the following. The complainant spent time with Mr Foster on Palm Island when she was in year 5 and went to school there for a few months. The complainant met the appellant for the first time in 2010. That was when the complainant met her half-siblings, including AB. The complainant finished school in year 11. Mrs Foster did not want to care for the complainant anymore. Some time in 2017 the complainant called the appellant and asked if she could stay with him at his place and he invited her to stay with him on Palm Island. The complainant made her own way to Palm Island and waited at the appellant’s home for him to arrive.

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 DCN [2025] QCA 62
PARTIES:	R v DCN (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 142 of 2023 DC No 336 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 27 July 2023 (Devereaux SC CJDC)
DELIVERED ON:	7 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 November 2024
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Boddice JA and Martin SJA
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty of three counts of rape of his biological daughter – where the complainant was interviewed by police after she underwent a termination of pregnancy when she was 17 years old – where the complainant asserted that she became pregnant after a casual sexual encounter or was raped by one of her brothers – where the complainant explicitly excluded the appellant as the offender – where the complainant gave evidence at trial that those statements made to police were lies and that she was raped by the appellant – where there was some independent DNA evidence and other witnesses’ evidence that supported the complainant’s evidence – whether the verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 4 were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence adduced in the trial CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was found guilty of three counts of rape (counts 1, 2 and 4) – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm (count 3) – where there was independent DNA evidence and other witnesses’ evidence relating to counts 1, 2 and 4 that supported the complainant’s evidence – where there was a lack of evidence from any witness other than the complainant regarding count 3 – where there was a difference in the quality of evidence between the evidence for count 3 and the evidence for counts 1, 2 and 4 – whether the acquittal on count 3 was reconcilable with the guilty verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 4 CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was found guilty of three counts of rape following a trial – where the offending was aggravated by the appellant being the biological father of the complainant and the offending was committed over a period of about two years – where the appellant showed no remorse – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited R v HAD[2006] QCA 464, cited R v LJ[2004] QCA 114, cited R v VN[2023] QCA 220, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared…