R v Firth

[2022] QCA 11

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Firth [2022] QCA 11

PARTIES:

R
v
FIRTH, Gavin Paul
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 215 of 2020
SC No 139 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 18 September 2020 (North J)

DELIVERED ON:

11 February 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 June 2021

JUDGES:

Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Henry J

ORDER:

Dismiss the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury after a trial and convicted of seven offences against the same complainant – where the appellant appeals against his conviction upon the ground that the verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence – whether it was open to the jury upon the whole of the evidence to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A

Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12, cited
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

J W Fenton for the appellant
C W Heaton QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Stevenson McNamara for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. FRASER JA:  The appellant was found guilty by a jury after a trial and convicted of seven offences against the same complainant.  The appellant appeals against his conviction upon the ground that the verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence.  The ultimate question raised by that ground is whether it was open to the jury upon the whole of the evidence to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt.[1]  The Court must conduct an independent examination of the whole of the evidence[2] “to see whether, notwithstanding [the jury’s] assessment [that the evidence of the complainant was credible and reliable] – either by reason of inconsistencies, discrepancies, or other inadequacies; or in light of other evidence – the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt.”[3]

   [1]Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123 at [43] – [45].

   [2]SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400 at [20] – [22].

   [3]Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123 at [39].

2. The offences are described in the following table:

Count	Date of Offence	Nature of Offence	Particulars[4]
1	On a date unknown between 31 December 2015 and 24 March 2017	Rape	(The time in the complainant’s bedroom) The defendant used his finger/s to penetrate [the complainant’s] vagina, without her consent.
2	22 April 2017	Supply a Dangerous Drug to a minor	(The time behind Cranbook Seafoods) The defendant supplied the dangerous drugs methylamphetamine and/or amphetamine to [the complainant], who…