R v Edwards

Case [2025] QCA 123

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Edwards [2025] QCA 123

PARTIES:

R
v
EDWARDS, Luke John
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 135 of 2022
DC No 1160 of 2022
DC No 699 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 7 June 2022; Date of Sentence: 7 June 2022 (Allen KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

1 July 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2025

JUDGES:

Flanagan JA and Ryan and Cooper JJ

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal against the conviction for sexual assault is dismissed.

2.    The application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for sexual assault is refused.

3.   The appeal against the conviction for contempt is dismissed.

4.   Leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for contempt is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.

5.   The Registrar of the District Court is to amend the Verdict and Judgment Record so that, in relation to the sentence for the charge of contempt, the word “No” is added before the phrase “Conviction Recorded”.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of sexual assault (Count 2) – where the appellant was acquitted of the other count of sexual assault (Count 1) – where the appellant contends that the complainant’s own account of events was inconsistent; that the complainant’s evidence was inconsistent with the evidence of one of the preliminary complaint witnesses; and that the complainant’s evidence was inconsistent with the DNA evidence – where the trial judge gave directions that any inconsistencies may cause the jury to have doubts about the complainant’s credibility or reliability – where the appellant’s account was incredible and unreal – whether the jury’s verdict on Count 2 was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of one count of sexual assault (Count 2) – where the appellant was acquitted of the other count of sexual assault (Count 1) – whether a guilty verdict in respect of Count 2 was unreasonably inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on Count 1

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of sexual assault and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended, for an operational period of 18 months – where the appellant seeks leave to appeal this sentence – where the appellant contends the sentence should be set aside if his conviction is quashed

COURTS AND JUDGES – CONTEMPT – POWER OF COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where at trial the appellant directed insults to the prosecutor; repeatedly interrupted proceedings and misbehaved; and disobeyed the trial judge’s order – where the trial judge dealt with the appellant summarily for contempt of court – where the trial judge proceeded on…

Continue reading R v Edwards

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Edwards [2025] QCA 123
Case
[2025] QCA 123
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Edwards, the appellant, Edwards, was convicted of one count of sexual assault (Count 2) but acquitted of another count of sexual assault (Count 1). Edwards appealed against his conviction and sentence for the sexual assault, and also against his conviction and sentence for contempt of court. The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether the jury's verdict on Count 2 was unreasonable, whether a guilty verdict in respect of Count 2 was inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on Count 1, and whether the appellant's conduct warranted a conviction for contempt of court. The court held that the jury's verdict on Count 2 was not unreasonable, that there was no inconsistency between the guilty verdict on Count 2 and the not guilty verdict on Count 1, and that the appellant's conduct warranted a conviction for contempt of court.

The court found that the complainant's evidence was consistent and credible, and that any inconsistencies with other evidence did not detract from her overall credibility. The court also found that the appellant's account was incredible and unreal, and that the jury's rejection of his account was reasonable. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the absence of DNA evidence was significant, noting that the absence of DNA evidence could not reasonably have detracted from the prosecution case. The court also found that the appellant's conduct during the trial warranted a conviction for contempt of court. The court held that the appellant's conduct was wilful and not lawfully excused, and that the sentence imposed for contempt was not manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction for sexual assault, refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for sexual assault, dismissed the appeal against the conviction for contempt, and granted leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for contempt, but dismissed the appeal. The Registrar of the District Court was ordered to amend the Verdict and Judgment Record so that, in relation to the sentence for the charge of contempt, the word “No” is added before the phrase “Conviction Recorded”.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against the conviction for sexual assault is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for sexual assault is refused.

3. The appeal against the conviction for contempt is dismissed.

4. Leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for contempt is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.

5. The Registrar of the District Court is to amend the Verdict and Judgment Record so that, in relation to the sentence for the charge of contempt, the word “No” is added before the phrase “Conviction Recorded”.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

It is necessary to first conduct an independent assessment of the record, and then to consider the appellant’s arguments.The complainant’s evidence The complainant is a Chinese national. In 2018, she was studying in Brisbane and residing with her homestay family in a Brisbane suburb. On 22 March 2018, the complainant was travelling by train from the city to her homestay house. She first noticed the appellant (whom she did not know) on the train when he sat near her on a seat vacated by a woman with a guide dog. The appellant stared at the complainant and made faces towards her by “raising his eyebrows in a really funny way”.[7] He said nothing to her whilst they were on the train.[7]AB 218/46. The complainant alighted from the train at her station. The appellant alighted at the same station. He said “ni hao”[8] to the complainant and they had a brief conversation about China. From the station, together they crossed the train track safety crossing and walked along the footpath in the direction of the complainant’s house.[8]“Hello” in Mandarin Chinese. The appellant told the complainant his name was Luke. He asked the complainant for her name, her age and, twice, for her phone number. On the second occasion the complainant gave him her number. She said that she was worried that he would “do something”[9] if she did not. The appellant called the number immediately, thus providing her with his number. The appellant asked the complainant to save his number, which she did, under the name “Luke”.[10][9]AB 242/15 – 16.[10]AB 236/19. As they were stopped at traffic lights, the appellant started to touch the complainant on the side of her body. She moved away and tried to find another topic to discuss. She asked the appellant what his “purpose”[11] was. The appellant said he was on his way to visit relatives at a Thai takeaway which was in the vicinity. They crossed the road and walked together along the footpath. [11]AB 238/4. During their conversation, the appellant asked the complainant whether she would like to go out with him on the weekend; whether she had a boyfriend; and whether she would like him to be her Australian boyfriend. The complainant replied, “no thank you”.[12] She told the appellant she had an ex-boyfriend back in China. During that conversation, the appellant brushed the complainant’s thighs with his hand “a couple of times” and grabbed her buttocks once (count 1).[13][12]AB 220/31.[13]AB 220/32. When the complainant and the appellant were across the road from the complainant’s house, the complainant announced that she was home. The appellant grabbed the complainant’s wrist; pulled her towards him; put his hands around the complainant’s waist; and hugged her once. She “pushed him away”.[14] The appellant hugged her a second time and lifted her up until her feet were off the ground. The appellant and complainant were face to face; she could feel his breath. The complainant saw the appellant “poke his lips”[15] and try to kiss her (count 2).[14]AB 238/42.[15]AB 229/22.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Neither counsel sought re-directions. The jury retired at 12.16 pm on day 3 of the trial. The jury returned their unanimous verdicts at 2.10 pm on day 4. Consideration of verdict on count 2 The complainant was a measured witness who made reasonable concessions under cross-examination. Her evidence included an internally consistent and inherently credible account of the appellant’s conduct. Her account included believable detail, such as her evidence that the appellant picked her up in his attempt to kiss her; her evidence that in rejecting the appellant’s attempt to kiss her she made a statement about it not being “safe” which reflected their earlier conversation; and her evidence that she called out to the homestay family’s dog after the assault the subject of count 2. The complainant’s allegations that she had been sexually assaulted were supported by her distressed condition. Although there was inconsistency between the complainant’s evidence and the evidence of Ms [Y], the complainant otherwise gave a consistent account of the appellant’s conduct towards her to the four other preliminary complaint witnesses. It was for the appellant to identify what he said were the weaknesses in the prosecution case and to demonstrate how those weaknesses reduced the probative value of the evidence to such an extent that, even making full allowance for the jury’s advantage, there existed a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted.[62] The weaknesses relied upon by the appellant included the inconsistency between the complainant’s evidence and Ms [Y]’s evidence of her complaint; and the absence of DNA evidence. The appellant’s contention that the complainant gave inconsistent evidence about the number of times she was hugged was not correct.[63] [62]R v Miller (2021) 8 QR 221 at [18].[63]AB 238 – 239. The jury’s attention was drawn to the significance of the inconsistency between the complainant and Ms [Y]. It assumed prominence in the summing up and in defence counsel’s address. It would have been reasonable for the jury to have concluded that Ms [Y] was mistaken in her recollection of the detail of the complainant’s complaint, particularly when one compared her written notes to her recollection; or to have concluded that the inconsistency did not detract from the complainant’s credibility or reliability overall. The absence of any DNA evidence to support the complainant’s evidence was readily explicable and could not reasonably have detracted from the prosecution case. The appellant’s account was incredible and unreal. It contained obvious exaggeration and oddities, including in his statements about his treatment, sexual or fraudulent, by other women, and in his assertion that he had qualifications in fashion. His version of events did not accord with common sense or life experience. The jury rejected completely his evidence that it was the complainant who sexually assaulted him. To have done so was wholly reasonable – that suggestion was, on the face of the record, fanciful. Further, in deciding to reject the appellant’s account, the jury had the advantage of being able to compare the presentation and demeanour of the complainant with the presentation and demeanour of the appellant.