R v Gleadhill - [2002] QCA 204

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Gleadhill [2002] QCA 204

PARTIES:

R
v
GLEADHILL, Gary John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 326 of 2001
DC No 211 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gladstone

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN FINDINGS OF JURY – INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN DIFFERENT FINDINGS – PARTICULAR CASES - where appellant convicted on two counts of rape and acquitted on two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 - where appellant contends guilty verdicts on two counts of rape were inconsistent with acquittal on two counts of indecent dealing – where logical explanation for the jury’s differing verdicts – where jury’s verdict of acquittal was not a finding that the complainant was dishonest or so inherently unreliable as to inevitably taint her credibility or reliability on the other counts

EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF, PRESUMPTIONS AND WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – CREDIBILITY AND WEIGHT – OTHER PARTICULAR CASES

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE OR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE – WHEN NEW TRIAL REFUSED – VERDICT NOT UNREASONABLE – PARTICULAR CASES - where complainant alleged for the first time uncharged acts of sexual interference including rape during cross examination – where primary judge brought to jury’s attention that a finding that the complainant was lying about the new allegations might affect the view of her credibility on other issues – where cross examination of the complainant raised additional matters not previously recounted – where matters were in the nature of further detail in response to specific questions rather than inconsistencies with earlier accounts - where delay of almost five years in making the complaint – where no corroboration of the complainant’s evidence – where judge gave adequate directions - where jury’s verdict not unsafe

Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, considered
R v M [2001] QCA 458, CA No 126 of 2001, 26 October 2001, considered
R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290, File No 60678 of 2000, 1 August 2001, considered
R v S [2002] QCA 167, CA No 307 of 2001, 22 March 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

AJ Glynn SC, with PF Richards, for the appellant
SG Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Rodney Boyce Solicitors for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: In the District Court on 30 October 2001, the appellant was convicted of two counts of rape (counts 1 and 4) and acquitted on two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16…

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 Gleadhill

Details

AGLC: R v Gleadhill [2002] QCA 204
Case: [2002] QCA 204
Decision Date: 14 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Gleadhill, was convicted on two counts of rape and acquitted on two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16. Gleadhill appealed against his convictions, arguing that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appeal raised issues concerning the consistency of the jury's findings, the credibility of the complainant, and the adequacy of the directions given by the trial judge.

The court examined whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, particularly in light of the acquittal on some charges and the convictions on others. The court found that there was a logical explanation for the jury's differing verdicts, as the jury's verdict of acquittal did not necessarily imply that the complainant was dishonest or unreliable in relation to the other charges. The court also considered whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, particularly in light of the delay in reporting the alleged acts and the lack of corroboration. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and that the trial judge had given adequate directions to the jury.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, holding that the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The court found that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the assessment of the complainant's credibility and that the jury's verdict was not unsafe. The appeal against conviction was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Gleadhill [2002] QCA 204
PARTIES:	R v GLEADHILL, Gary John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 326 of 2001 DC No 211 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Gladstone
DELIVERED ON:	14 June 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 May 2002
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN FINDINGS OF JURY – INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN DIFFERENT FINDINGS – PARTICULAR CASES - where appellant convicted on two counts of rape and acquitted on two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 - where appellant contends guilty verdicts on two counts of rape were inconsistent with acquittal on two counts of indecent dealing – where logical explanation for the jury’s differing verdicts – where jury’s verdict of acquittal was not a finding that the complainant was dishonest or so inherently unreliable as to inevitably taint her credibility or reliability on the other counts EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF, PRESUMPTIONS AND WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – CREDIBILITY AND WEIGHT – OTHER PARTICULAR CASES APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE OR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE – WHEN NEW TRIAL REFUSED – VERDICT NOT UNREASONABLE – PARTICULAR CASES - where complainant alleged for the first time uncharged acts of sexual interference including rape during cross examination – where primary judge brought to jury’s attention that a finding that the complainant was lying about the new allegations might affect the view of her credibility on other issues – where cross examination of the complainant raised additional matters not previously recounted – where matters were in the nature of further detail in response to specific questions rather than inconsistencies with earlier accounts - where delay of almost five years in making the complaint – where no corroboration of the complainant’s evidence – where judge gave adequate directions - where jury’s verdict not unsafe Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, considered R v M [2001] QCA 458, CA No 126 of 2001, 26 October 2001, considered R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290, File No 60678 of 2000, 1 August 2001, considered R v S [2002] QCA 167, CA No 307 of 2001, 22 March 2002, considered
COUNSEL:	AJ Glynn SC, with PF Richards, for the appellant SG Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Rodney Boyce Solicitors for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent