R v FL - [2005] QCA 104

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v FL [2005] QCA 104

PARTIES:

R
v
FL
(appellant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 426 of 2004

DC No 230 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against conviction and sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 March 2005

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Fryberg J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction – Particular grounds – Unreasonable or insupportable verdict – Where appeal dismissed – Indecent dealing and rape – Credibility of complainant is matter for the jury – Uncorroborated evidence of complainant –– Longman direction – Where judge wrongly instructed the jury – Whether appealable error

Doggett v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 343, cited
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79, cited

COUNSEL:

A Glynn SC for the appellant

D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan & Bosscher for the appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The relevant facts are set out in the reasons for judgment of Fryberg J which I have had the advantage of reading. The real issue at the trial was the credibility of the complainant. The only challenge to the summing up was with respect to the Longman direction (see Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79). I agree with Fryberg J that, subject to one matter, the direction in that regard was adequate.

As Fryberg J has pointed out it was unfortunate that the words used by the learned trial judge with respect to "other evidence" could have led the jury to conclude that if there was corroboration the Longman caution was irrelevant. That would have infringed the reasoning in Doggett v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 343. However, as that error would only have affected one count, and the jury convicted on the other counts, the error had no practical effect.

I am persuaded that generally the summing up was adequate on the issue of the complainant's credibility and there was ample evidence supporting findings beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty.

The remaining ground of appeal is that the "trial was unfair due to comments made by the complainant and other evidence then led in the trial." The alleged offending passages are set out in the reasons of Fryberg J. Whilst it is unfortunate that some of the matters particularised got before the jury I am not persuaded that in the circumstances that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.

KEANE JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Fryberg J. I agree with his Honour's reasons and the order which his Honour proposes.

FRYBERG J: The appellant was convicted in the District Court at Townsville of three counts…

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 FL

Details

AGLC: R v FL [2005] QCA 104
Case: [2005] QCA 104
Decision Date: 15 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v FL involves an appeal against a conviction for indecent dealing and rape. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant, FL, was convicted based on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant, who testified about the alleged incidents. The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury, known as the Longman direction, constituted an error that warranted a new trial. The Longman direction pertains to situations where the jury might be inclined to convict on uncorroborated evidence, requiring them to consider whether such evidence is so unsatisfactory that no reasonable tribunal could be satisfied of the guilt of the accused.

The court examined whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury were accurate and whether any error made was significant enough to be considered an appealable error. The appellant argued that the judge's direction was incorrect and prejudicial, potentially leading to an unreasonable or insupportable verdict. The High Court held that while the judge did err in providing the Longman direction, this error did not reach the threshold of being an appealable error that would warrant a new trial. The court emphasised that the credibility of the complainant was a matter for the jury to decide, and the error did not undermine the overall fairness of the trial or the verdict reached.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The court found that despite the error in the Longman direction, the trial remained fair, and the jury's verdict was reasonable. The error did not materially affect the outcome, and thus, the conviction was upheld. The court's decision highlights the importance of correctly instructing juries on the evaluation of uncorroborated evidence but also underscores the limits of appealable errors in criminal cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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 FL [2005] QCA 104
PARTIES:	R v FL (appellant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 426 of 2004 DC No 230 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction and sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	15 April 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 March 2005
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction – Particular grounds – Unreasonable or insupportable verdict – Where appeal dismissed – Indecent dealing and rape – Credibility of complainant is matter for the jury – Uncorroborated evidence of complainant –– Longman direction – Where judge wrongly instructed the jury – Whether appealable error Doggett v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 343, cited Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79, cited
COUNSEL:	A Glynn SC for the appellant D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent