R v Ford - [2007] VSCA 221

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 164 of 2006

THE QUEEN
	v
JOHN PATRICK FORD

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT, ASHLEY and REDLICH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 May 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 October 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 221

---

Criminal law – Conviction – Intentionally causing injury – Threatening to inflict serious injury – False imprisonment – Making a threat to kill – Rape – Burglary – Aggravated burglary – Stalking – Complainant in relationship with applicant – Fresh evidence discovered since applicant’s conviction – Whether doubt cast upon complainant’s evidence which could materially affect the jury’s verdict – Whether applicant denied chance of acquittal – Cross-examination of complainant on embarrassing material restricted by trial judge – Whether material irrelevant in the circumstances – Severance – Inconsistency of verdicts – Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M A Gamble, SC	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr T F Danos	Paul Vale Criminal Law

VINCENT JA:

The applicant was found guilty in the County Court at Melbourne, on 13 December 2005, on three counts of intentionally causing injury (counts 1, 3[1] and 4); two counts of threatening to inflict serious injury (counts 2 and 13); one count of false imprisonment (count 9); one count of making a threat to kill (count 10); one count of rape (count 11); one count of burglary (count 12[2]); one count of aggravated burglary (count 14); and one count of stalking (count 15).[3]
[1]Statutory alternative.
[2]Statutory alternative.
[3]The applicant was acquitted on one count of indecent assault (count 6); one count of rape (count 7) and one count of aggravated burglary (count 12). In respect of count 3 (intentionally causing serious injury), count 5 (threatening to inflict serious injury) and count 8 (indecent assault), her Honour directed that acquittals be entered on each count. With respect to count 5, her Honour ruled that there would be a directed acquittal as no evidence had been led by the Crown to support it. There was no evidence given by the complainant and this was conceded by the Crown.

He now seeks leave to appeal against these convictions[4] on the grounds that:
[4]After hearing a plea in mitigation of penalty, the sentencing judge, on 26 May 2006, imposed the following:
On count 1  -           one month imprisonment;
On each of
counts 2 and 3               -           three months’ imprisonment;
On count 4   -           four months’ imprisonment;
On each of
counts 9, 10 and 12        -           nine months’ imprisonment;
On count 11                   -           30 months’ imprisonment;
On count 13                   -           12 months’ imprisonment;
On count 14                   -           four years and six months’ imprisonment;
On count 15                   -           18 months’ imprisonment.
Her Honour directed that the individual sentences imposed on each of counts 11 and 13 be served cumulatively with that imposed on count 14 and that the remaining counts all be served concurrently. This created a total effective sentence…

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 Ford

Details

AGLC: R v Ford [2007] VSCA 221
Case: [2007] VSCA 221
Decision Date: 10 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus Ford, the applicant sought a fresh appeal against his conviction on various criminal charges. The nature of the dispute centred around the sufficiency of the evidence against him, particularly in light of new evidence that had emerged since his initial conviction. The case was heard in the court of appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the fresh evidence raised a reasonable doubt about the applicant's guilt that could materially affect the jury’s verdict, and if the trial judge had unduly restricted cross-examination on certain matters.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the sufficiency of the evidence against the applicant and whether the trial judge had erred in limiting the cross-examination of the complainant on potentially embarrassing material. The court also needed to assess whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether they were unsafe and unsatisfactory. Additionally, the court had to consider if the trial judge should have severed certain charges due to the potential prejudice they might have caused to the applicant.

The court of appeal found that the fresh evidence did not cast sufficient doubt on the applicant's guilt to materially affect the jury’s verdict. The court ruled that the trial judge did not err in restricting the cross-examination of the complainant on certain matters, as the material was deemed irrelevant in the circumstances. The court further concluded that the verdicts were not inconsistent and were safe and satisfactory. Consequently, the application for a fresh appeal was dismissed.

Orders