R v Groundwater

Case [2020] QCA 287

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Groundwater [2020] QCA 287

PARTIES:

R
v
GROUNDWATER, Paul Rognvald
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 259 of 2019
DC No 601 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 19 September 2019 (Jarro DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

15 December 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 April 2020

JUDGES:

Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Burns J

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of four counts of aggravated indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12 years and under care and two counts of rape – where the appellant was acquitted of two counts of rape – where counts 1 and 2 were alleged to have occurred on one occasion and counts 3 to 8 on another occasion – where the complainant gave a videorecorded interview pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and was cross-examined at a pre-recorded hearing pursuant to s 21AK of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the acquittal on count 6

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of four counts of aggravated indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12 years and under care and two counts of rape – where the appellant was acquitted of two counts of rape – where counts 1 and 2 were alleged to have occurred on one occasion and counts 3 to 8 on another occasion – where the complainant gave a videorecorded interview pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and was cross-examined at a pre-recorded hearing pursuant to s 21AK of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of counts 1, 2 and 7

Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21AK, s 93A

Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
Pell v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 394; [2020] HCA 12, cited
R v Allen (a pseudonym)[2020] QCA 233, cited
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35, cited
R v GAW[2015] QCA 166, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the appellant
N W Crane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Continue reading R v Groundwater

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Groundwater [2020] QCA 287
Case
[2020] QCA 287
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of four counts of aggravated indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12 years and under care, and two counts of rape. He was acquitted of two counts of rape. The appellant appealed against his convictions, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the acquittal on count 6, and whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of counts 1, 2 and 7. The court noted that the complainant gave a videorecorded interview pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and was cross-examined at a pre-recorded hearing pursuant to s 21AK of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The court considered the evidence, including the complainant's account, evidence from her parents and a teacher from her school, and other exhibits.

The court found that the guilty verdicts were not inconsistent with the acquittal on count 6, as there was no obvious explanation on the evidence for that acquittal. The court held that it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of counts 1, 2 and 7, based on the whole of the evidence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The court made no orders for a new trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Although it was accepted by the appellant that there was no evidence to support a finding of guilt in relation to one of the acquittals (count 4), it was argued that there was no obvious explanation on the evidence for the other acquittal (count 6). It was submitted that the Court should therefore “conclude that the jury regarded the complainant as unreliable” in relation to that count and, because “the quality of her evidence about the other counts was similar to or, in some cases even poorer than, the evidence about count 6”, the guilty verdicts were unreasonable because it was not open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt on those counts if they were not also satisfied of his guilt on count 6.The evidence The Crown case consisted of pre-recorded evidence from the complainant along with evidence from each of her parents and a teacher from her school. A number of photographic and other exhibits were tendered, and several facts were jointly admitted by the parties. The appellant elected not to give or call any evidence in his own defence. What follows is a summary of the evidence placed before the jury, so far as is relevant to the grounds of appeal. On the day following the second occasion when the appellant babysat the complainant (2 January 2017), the child told her mother that she and the appellant had been in the shower together. Later that day, and the next, both of her parents spoke with her separately. The complainant confirmed to each that she and the appellant showered together and that, when doing so, the appellant was “wearing nothing”. In one of the conversations with her father, the complainant said that the appellant allowed her to “wash” his “doodle”. The appellant was then called on to provide an account and, to that end, the child’s mother sent a Facebook message to him in which she sought a “diarised version of … what happened that night”. The next day (3 January 2017), the appellant replied, indicating that the “diary was finished” and, with that, the complainant’s father drove to the appellant’s home to collect it. Nothing appears to turn on the content of that version or, for that matter, what was said during a pretext telephone conversation between the complainant’s mother and the appellant on 10 January 2017 which was recorded by the police. The complainant was interviewed by police on the same day as the pretext telephone conversation. That interview was videorecorded and an edited version played to the jury at the trial pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The child was later cross-examined on her account at a preliminary hearing conducted pursuant to s 21AK of the Evidence Act on 3 August 2018 and, like her s 93A interview, a videorecording of that evidence was played to the jury. On the hearing of the appeal, a transcript of the s 93A interview was received in evidence by the Court, and the various passages from that interview that are extracted in what follows have been reproduced from that transcript.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.