R v FP Summary | CaseChat AU

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v FP [2007] QCA 71
PARTIES: R
v
FP
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 336 of 2006 DC No 112 of 2006
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Mount Isa
DELIVERED EX
TEMPORE ON: 14 March 2007
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 14 March 2007
JUDGES: Jerrard JA and Muir and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS: 1. Appeal allowed
2. Conviction set aside
2. Re-trial ordered
3. The appellant be granted bail on his own undertaking
conditioned that he appear and surrender himself into
custody on any re-trial of this charge on a date and place
to be notified to him by the Director of Public
Prosecutions.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicant was convicted for unlawfully and indecently dealing with a child under the age of 12 – where the sentencing judge failed to direct on preliminary complaint and on hearsay – whether these misdirections resulted in a miscarriage of justice
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld), s 4A
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A, Pt 4A
Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1, applied
Jones v The Queen (1997) 143 ALR 52, applied
R v Cox [1986] 2 Qd R 55, applied
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620, applied
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124, applied
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300, applied
COUNSEL: T D Martin SC, with J R Hunter, for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Anderson Telford Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

JERRARD JA: The order will be that the conviction incurred on 1 December, 2006 for unlawfully and indecently dealing with a child under the age of 12 years is set aside and a re-trial is ordered. The Court will publish its reasons at a later date.

...

JERRARD JA: Thank you. Yes well the appellant will be granted bail on his own undertaking conditioned that he appear and surrender himself into custody on any re-trial of this charge on a date and place to be notified to him by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

-----

2 ORDER

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the applicant, who was convicted of unlawfully and indecently dealing with a child under the age of 12. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge failed to provide appropriate directions to the jury regarding preliminary complaints and hearsay evidence, which he claimed amounted to misdirections that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court was required to determine whether these alleged misdirections were significant enough to warrant the setting aside of the conviction and ordering a re-trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge's failure to direct the jury on preliminary complaints and hearsay constituted misdirections that had a substantial impact on the trial's outcome. The applicant contended that these omissions led to an unfair trial, as critical aspects of the evidence were not properly evaluated by the jury. The prosecution argued that any misdirections were not significant enough to affect the trial's outcome, and thus, the conviction should be upheld.

The court found that the sentencing judge's omissions constituted significant misdirections. These misdirections went to the heart of the case, as they involved foundational aspects of the evidence presented. The court concluded that these misdirections had a substantial impact on the trial's outcome, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a re-trial. The court also granted the applicant bail on his own undertaking, conditioned on his appearance and surrender into custody on any re-trial of the charge.

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Conviction set aside

2. Re-trial ordered

3. The appellant be granted bail on his own undertaking

conditioned that he appear and surrender himself into

custody on any re-trial of this charge on a date and place

to be notified to him by the Director of Public

Prosecutions.

R v FP

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v FP [2007] QCA 71
PARTIES:	R v FP (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 336 of 2006 DC No 112 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mount Isa
DELIVERED EX
TEMPORE ON:	14 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 March 2007
JUDGES:	Jerrard JA and Muir and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed 2. Conviction set aside 2. Re-trial ordered 3. The appellant be granted bail on his own undertaking conditioned that he appear and surrender himself into custody on any re-trial of this charge on a date and place to be notified to him by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicant was convicted for unlawfully and indecently dealing with a child under the age of 12 – where the sentencing judge failed to direct on preliminary complaint and on hearsay – whether these misdirections resulted in a miscarriage of justice
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld), s 4A Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A, Pt 4A
Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1, applied Jones v The Queen (1997) 143 ALR 52, applied R v Cox [1986] 2 Qd R 55, applied RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620, applied TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124, applied Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300, applied
COUNSEL:	T D Martin SC, with J R Hunter, for the appellant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Anderson Telford Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent