R v Fuller

Case [2009] QCA 195

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Fuller [2009] QCA 195

PARTIES:

R
v
FULLER, Katherine
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 2 of 2008
DC No 395 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 April 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Applegarth J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where a witness gave evidence as to what the complainant said the appellant had told the complainant – where defence counsel objected to this evidence on the basis that it was hearsay – where the trial judge allowed the evidence but directed the jury that it was only relevant to the state of mind of the complainant – whether this evidence was hearsay evidence – whether the trial judge erred in ruling that this evidence was admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where the appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury as to the use they could make of the complainant’s son’s evidence; by failing to direct the jury as to the drawing of inferences on the question of dishonesty; and by failing to give the traditional circumstantial evidence direction – whether the trial judge erred in these respects

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – where there was a very strong Crown case on all counts – whether the appellant suffered a miscarriage of justice in the event that the trial judge did err in his directions to the jury – whether the Court should apply s 668E(1A) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1A)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 59

Gately v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 208; [2007] HCA 55, cited
Perera v The Queen [1986] 1 Qd R 211, cited
Ratten v The Queen [1972] AC 378, cited
R v Adams; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 312, cited
R v DAN [2007] QCA 66, distinguished
R v Gourley[2003] QCA 307, cited
R v Hancox[2006] QCA 333, cited
R v Holman [1997] 1 Qd R 373; [1996] QCA 262, cited
R v McBride [2008] QCA 412, distinguished
R v Mogg (2000) 112 A Crim R 417; [2000] QCA 244, cited
R v Parker[2007] QCA 22, cited
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; [1963] HCA 44, cited
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56

Continue reading R v Fuller

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Fuller [2009] QCA 195
Case
[2009] QCA 195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fuller involved the appellant, Fuller, who was convicted and subsequently appealed his conviction on several grounds. The nature of the dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence and the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. Fuller contended that the trial judge erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence and in failing to properly direct the jury on several key issues. The court had to determine whether the evidence in question was indeed hearsay and, if so, whether its admission was justified. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate, particularly in relation to the use of certain evidence and the drawing of inferences.

The court first considered whether the evidence provided by a witness regarding what the complainant said Fuller had told her was hearsay. The appellant's counsel objected to this evidence on the grounds that it was hearsay, but the trial judge allowed it, explaining that it was relevant only to the complainant's state of mind. The court needed to decide if the trial judge correctly ruled that this evidence was admissible and whether any error in this ruling amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court also examined the trial judge's directions to the jury, particularly whether the judge sufficiently informed the jury about the use they could make of the complainant’s son’s evidence, the drawing of inferences on the question of dishonesty, and the traditional circumstantial evidence direction.

The court concluded that while the trial judge did err in some respects, these errors did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, given the strength of the Crown's case. The evidence in question, although arguably hearsay, was correctly admitted as it pertained to the complainant's state of mind. The court found that the trial judge's directions, when considered as a whole, were adequate, and the errors did not prejudice the appellant's case. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.