R. v. F - [1993] QCA 305

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 305

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 208 of 1993

Brisbane

[R. v. F]

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

(Appellant)

The President
Mr Justice Ambrose
Mr Justice White

Judgment delivered 20/08/93

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION ALLOWED, THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - Admission on taped interview tended to reveal appellant's prior convictions - Whether admissible - Whether trial miscarried.
Counsel:Appellant conducted his own case
Mr J. Henry for the respondent

Solicitors:Director of Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date: 17/08/93

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No.208 of 1993

BeforeThe President
Mr Justice Ambrose
Mr Justice White

[R. v. F]

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 20/08/93

The applicant has appealed against his conviction in the District Court at Ipswich on 2 June 1993 on two charges of incest between 6 June and 27 December 1991. He has also applied for leave to appeal against a sentence of ten years' imprisonment imposed on him on 4 June 1993.
The appellant was born on 10 June 1957 and was about 34 years of age at the time of the offences. The complainant was his 12 year old daughter, C. The prosecution case was that on two occasions about a month apart the appellant had sexual intercourse with his daughter in the marital bed early in the morning after his wife had gone to work. The complainant's evidence as to sexual intercourse was uncorroborated. However, in taped police interviews, the appellant admitted having placed his penis between her legs on two occasions apparently consistent in time and place with the occasions nominated by the complainant.
The appellant, who did not call or give evidence, has a criminal history involving other sexual offences. He had been sentenced on 30 September 1988 to six years' imprisonment on one charge of attempted rape, one charge of rape, one charge of incest and one charge of dealing with a girl under the age of fourteen years. Those charges related to his step-daughter, D. He was still on parole at the time of the offences the subject of the convictions which are presently under appeal.
Ground 2 of the appellant's notice of appeal relates to his application for leave to appeal against sentence and simply contends that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Grounds 1 and 3 provide as follows:
"1.I was unjustly dealt with in ... regards to prior conviction being mentioned in a video tape submitted to the jury for hearing prior to sentencing by the trial Judge. This evidence was supposed to be removed from video tape.
...
3.That the learned trial Judge erred in allowing extraneous evidence to be admitted before the Jury."

Those grounds relate to a passage in a taped interview of the appellant by police. Counsel had quite properly agreed that passages implicating him in other offences should not…

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. F

Details

AGLC: R. v F [1993] QCA 305
Case: [1993] QCA 305
Decision Date: 20 August 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R. v. F. involved the appellant's criminal conviction which was challenged on the grounds of the admissibility of evidence and the fairness of the trial process. The appellant was convicted by a jury and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal was brought before the Court of Appeal in Victoria, which was tasked with determining whether the trial had miscarried due to the admission of certain evidence.

The primary legal issues the Court of Appeal had to address were whether the admission of the taped interview, which incidentally revealed the appellant's prior convictions, was permissible under the law, and if so, whether this admission resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that the introduction of such evidence was highly prejudicial, unfairly influencing the jury's decision and thus compromising the fairness of the trial.

The Court of Appeal, after considering the relevant legal principles and authorities, concluded that the evidence in question should not have been admitted as it was both irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The Court found that the evidence of prior convictions was not admissible because it did not meet the criteria for relevance under the common law rules of evidence. Furthermore, the Court held that the prejudicial effect of this evidence substantially outweighed its probative value, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the conviction, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered a new trial to ensure the appellant's right to a fair trial was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION ALLOWED, THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

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.