R v GT

Case [2005] QCA 478

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v GT [2005] QCA 478

PARTIES:

R
v
GT
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 69 of 2005
DC No 1825 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 October 2005

JUDGES:

Williams JA, Muir and Atkinson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL – where the trial judge allowed the jury into the courtroom during their deliberations to play the pre-recorded video statements – where the pre-recorded statement was admitted pursuant to s 21AM of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and included the evidence-in-chief and cross-examination of the witness – there is no general rule that video recordings made under s 21AM cannot be taken into the jury room during the deliberations

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL – where the jury requested the complainant’s statement be re-read to them and a further portion re-read again – where the trial judge did not give a warning about the need for care not to give undue weight to the evidence – where the jury had available to them the extensive cross-examination of the complainant in pre-recorded video statements – whether this constituted a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where s 93A required the maker of the statement to be a child at the time of trial – where the complainant and witness had given statements to the police when 15 years old but were both 16 years old at the time of the trial – section 93A was amended between the time of the trial and the decision of this Court – where the subsequent amendment to section 93A no longer requires the maker of the statement to be a child at the time of trial – whether the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the written statements of the complainant and a witness pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF STATUTES – RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION – IN RESPECT OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE – where s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) was amended between the date of trial and the decision of this Court – where the amendment makes evidence that was wrongly admitted into evidence in the trial admissible as though it has…

Continue reading R v GT

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v GT [2005] QCA 478
Case
[2005] QCA 478
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, GT, appealed against his conviction and sentence for multiple counts of sexual assault. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's decision to allow the jury to access pre-recorded video statements during their deliberations, without giving a warning about the need for care not to give undue weight to the evidence, constituted a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the trial judge erred in admitting the written statements of the complainant and a witness under section 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), given that the complainant and witness were 16 years old at the time of trial, not children as required by the statute.

The court considered that there is no general prohibition on the use of video recordings made under section 21AM in jury deliberations. The court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing the jury to access the pre-recorded video statements, as the jury had extensive cross-examination of the complainant available to them. The court also noted that the lack of a warning about the need for care did not necessarily lead to a miscarriage of justice, given the comprehensive nature of the available evidence. Regarding the admission of the written statements under section 93A, the court found that the subsequent amendment to the statute, which removed the requirement that the maker of the statement be a child at the time of trial, operated retrospectively and thus did not affect the admissibility of the statements. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in this regard.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld, and no new trial was ordered.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.