R v Go; ex parte A-G (Qld) - [2004] QCA 453

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v GO; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 453

PARTIES:

R
v
GO
(appellant)

R
v
GO
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 201 of 2004
CA No 244 of 2004
DC No 1243 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Appeal against Sentence by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 October 2004

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. In CA No 201 of 2004: Appeal dismissed
2. In CA No 244 of 2004: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE AND INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – whether aspects of complainant’s evidence inconsistent – whether jury could be convinced of appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – where inconsistency did not impact on credibility – where jury’s verdict was not unsafe and unsatisfactory – where conviction upheld

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where the Attorney-General appeals against a sentence of six months imprisonment to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order imposed on the respondent, upon his conviction of two counts of indecent dealing of a child under 16 years – whether the sentence is manifestly inadequate – whether the offence should prima facie result in a custodial sentence

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A

Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, cited
R v G; ex parte Attorney-General [2001] QCA 158; CA Nos 331 and 332 of 2000, 27 April 2001, cited
R v B [2003] QCA 105; CA No 336 of 2002, 14 March 2003, considered
R v M; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] 2 Qd R 543, considered
R v O [2001] QCA 40; CA No 310 of 2000, 15 February 2001, considered
R v Pham [1996] QCA 3; CA No 435 of 1995, 6 February 1996, cited

COUNSEL:

C Callaghan (sol) for the appellant in CA No 201 of 2004 and the respondent in CA No 244 of 2004
M J Copley for the respondent in CA No 201 of 2004 and the appellant in CA No 244 of 2004

SOLICITORS:

Callaghan Lawyers for the appellant in CA No 201 of 2004 and the respondent in CA No 244 of 2004
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent in CA No 201 of 2004 and the appellant in CA No 244 of 2004

WILLIAMS JA: For the reasons prepared by Jones J, with which I agree, both the appeal against conviction and the Attorney-General’s appeal against…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Go; ex parte A-G (Qld) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] QCA 453
Decision Date: 26 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal against the conviction and sentence of a respondent who was found guilty of two counts of indecent dealing with a child under 16 years. The Attorney-General of Queensland appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate and that the offence should result in a custodial sentence. The appeal against conviction was based on the argument that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and insupportable due to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence were so significant as to render the jury's verdict unreasonable and insupportable, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court was required to assess the credibility of the complainant's evidence, the weight of the evidence presented, and the appropriate sentence for the offence.

The court held that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence did not impact on her credibility, and the jury's verdict was not unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court found that the jury could have been convinced of the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and that the appeal against the sentence should be dismissed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. The conviction was upheld, and the sentence of six months imprisonment to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In CA No 201 of 2004: Appeal dismissed

2. In CA No 244 of 2004: 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 GO; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 453
PARTIES:	R v GO (appellant) R v GO (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 201 of 2004 CA No 244 of 2004 DC No 1243 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction Appeal against Sentence by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 November 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 October 2004
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. In CA No 201 of 2004: Appeal dismissed 2. In CA No 244 of 2004: Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE AND INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – whether aspects of complainant’s evidence inconsistent – whether jury could be convinced of appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – where inconsistency did not impact on credibility – where jury’s verdict was not unsafe and unsatisfactory – where conviction upheld CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – where the Attorney-General appeals against a sentence of six months imprisonment to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order imposed on the respondent, upon his conviction of two counts of indecent dealing of a child under 16 years – whether the sentence is manifestly inadequate – whether the offence should prima facie result in a custodial sentence Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, cited R v G; ex parte Attorney-General [2001] QCA 158; CA Nos 331 and 332 of 2000, 27 April 2001, cited R v B [2003] QCA 105; CA No 336 of 2002, 14 March 2003, considered R v M; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] 2 Qd R 543, considered R v O [2001] QCA 40; CA No 310 of 2000, 15 February 2001, considered R v Pham [1996] QCA 3; CA No 435 of 1995, 6 February 1996, cited
COUNSEL:	C Callaghan (sol) for the appellant in CA No 201 of 2004 and the respondent in CA No 244 of 2004 M J Copley for the respondent in CA No 201 of 2004 and the appellant in CA No 244 of 2004
SOLICITORS:	Callaghan Lawyers for the appellant in CA No 201 of 2004 and the respondent in CA No 244 of 2004 Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent in CA No 201 of 2004 and the appellant in CA No 244 of 2004