R v Douglas - [2014] QCA 187

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Douglas [2014] QCA 187

PARTIES:

R
v
DOUGLAS, Cory James
(appellant)

FILE NO:

CA No 30 of 2014
DC No 265 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 June 2014

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Direct that a verdict of acquittal be entered on counts 3 and 4 in the indictment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant at his trial was charged with three counts of rape and one count of sexual assault – where the appellant was convicted on two counts of rape – where the appellant was acquitted on the third count of rape and the count of sexual assault – where the evidence was of a series of sexual acts performed in one transaction over a relatively short period of time – where the jury’s verdict suggests compromise – whether the convictions on counts 3 and 4 were unreasonable and should be quashed

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 349, s 352

Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 12, applied
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited
R v CX[2006] QCA 409, considered
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, cited
R v O’Loughlin[2011] QCA 123, cited
R v SBL[2009] QCA 130, considered
R v TU[2009] QCA 386, cited

COUNSEL:

J R Hunter QC, with A W Collins, for the appellant
M Cowen for the respondent

SOLICITORS

Macrossan & Amiet Solicitors for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with North J’s reasons for this Court’s orders on 16 June 2014 allowing the appeal against conviction and setting aside the verdicts of guilty on counts 3 and 4. I also agree with his Honour’s reasons for now further ordering that verdicts of acquittal be entered on counts 3 and 4.

MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons of North J and with the order he proposes.

NORTH J: The appellant appeals from his conviction on two counts of rape after a trial before a jury. At his trial he was charged with four counts, three of rape[1] and one of sexual assault[2]. The jury, by its verdict, convicted the appellant on two counts of rape[3] and acquitted on a third count[4] and the count of sexual assault.
[1]Counts 1, 3 and 4 on the indictment.
[2]Count 2 on the indictment.
[3]Counts 3 and 4.
[4]Count 1.

In the opening address at the trial the prosecution particularised the four counts respectively:

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 Douglas

Details

AGLC: R v Douglas [2014] QCA 187
Case: [2014] QCA 187
Decision Date: 8 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Douglas involved the appellant, who was charged with three counts of rape and one count of sexual assault. After his trial, the appellant was convicted on two counts of rape but acquitted on the remaining charges, which included a third count of rape and a count of sexual assault. The court was required to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, particularly given the evidence presented which detailed a series of sexual acts occurring in a single transaction over a short period of time. The jury's verdict appeared to suggest a compromise, raising questions about the consistency and rationality of their decision-making process.

The legal issues at the heart of this appeal revolved around the consistency and reasonableness of the jury's verdict. Given that the evidence pertained to a continuous sequence of events, the court had to consider whether the jury's decision to convict on two counts while acquitting on the others was supported by the evidence and logical. The appellant argued that the inconsistency in the verdict indicated it was unreasonable, thereby necessitating a reconsideration of the convictions. The court needed to assess whether the jury had applied itself correctly to the evidence and whether the verdict could be considered rational and consistent in light of the presented facts.

The court, in its judgment, found that the convictions on counts 3 and 4 were unreasonable and could not be sustained. The reasoning was based on the evident inconsistency in the jury's verdict and the suggestion that the verdict indicated a compromise rather than a reasoned decision. The court concluded that the jury had not properly considered the evidence as a whole, resulting in a verdict that was not supported by the material presented. Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and the court directed that a verdict of acquittal be entered on counts 3 and 4 of the indictment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Direct that a verdict of acquittal be entered on counts 3 and 4 in the indictment.

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 Douglas [2014] QCA 187
PARTIES:	R v DOUGLAS, Cory James (appellant)
FILE NO:	CA No 30 of 2014 DC No 265 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	8 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 June 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and North J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Direct that a verdict of acquittal be entered on counts 3 and 4 in the indictment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant at his trial was charged with three counts of rape and one count of sexual assault – where the appellant was convicted on two counts of rape – where the appellant was acquitted on the third count of rape and the count of sexual assault – where the evidence was of a series of sexual acts performed in one transaction over a relatively short period of time – where the jury’s verdict suggests compromise – whether the convictions on counts 3 and 4 were unreasonable and should be quashed Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 349, s 352 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 12, applied MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited R v CX[2006] QCA 409, considered R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, cited R v O’Loughlin[2011] QCA 123, cited R v SBL[2009] QCA 130, considered R v TU[2009] QCA 386, cited
COUNSEL:	J R Hunter QC, with A W Collins, for the appellant M Cowen for the respondent
SOLICITORS	Macrossan & Amiet Solicitors for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent