R v GW - [2006] QCA 479

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v GW [2006] QCA 479

PARTIES:

R
v
GW
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 252 of 2006
DC No 248 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 November 2006

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of indecent treatment of a child under his care and one count of rape - where complainant child was appellant's stepdaughter - where complaint was made approximately two years after offences had occurred - where there were inconsistencies in complainant's evidence - where appellant's evidence at trial differed from what he had previously said to police - where appellant contends that verdicts were unreasonable on the evidence - whether jury was satisfied of appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where appellant also contends that inadmissible evidence was led at trial - whether trial judge should have allowed a witness to be asked if the appellant had told her of a conversation this witness was alleged to have had with another witness - whether asking that question resulted in a miscarriage of justice

MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606, applied

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC, with J S Veivers, for appellant
M J Copley for respondent

SOLICITORS:

MDRN Solicitors for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

McMURDO P: The appellant pleaded not guilty to one count of indecent treatment of a child under his care and one count of rape. The offences were said to have occurred between 25 December 2002 and 1 May 2003. He was convicted on 11 August 2006 after a five day jury trial. He appeals against his conviction contending that the verdicts were unreasonable on the evidence and that inadmissible evidence was led at trial.

The determination of the first ground of appeal requires a review of all the evidence led at trial with particular emphasis on the weaknesses relied upon by the appellant.

The evidence

The appellant married C and they had three sons, JE, JO and K, before divorcing. He later married L who had a daughter T from a previous relationship. The appellant's marriage to L also ended. T was the complainant in both counts. During the period when the offences were said to have occurred, the appellant lived in a house in suburban Brisbane with his three sons, then aged about 17,…

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 GW

Details

AGLC: R v GW [2006] QCA 479
Case: [2006] QCA 479
Decision Date: 17 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v GW involved the appellant who was convicted by a jury of one count of indecent treatment of a child under his care and one count of rape. The victim in this case was the appellant's stepdaughter. The charges were based on allegations made by the child approximately two years after the alleged offences occurred. The appellant argued on appeal that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence presented. The appellant also contended that there was an error in the admission of evidence at trial which led to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and whether there was an improper admission of evidence at trial. The appellant argued that there were inconsistencies in the child's evidence and that his own evidence at trial differed from what he had previously told the police. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge should have allowed a witness to be asked if the appellant had informed her of a conversation she was alleged to have had with another witness. The court needed to determine whether these issues were significant enough to warrant a new trial.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable or unsupportable on the evidence. The court found that the jury was entitled to consider the inconsistencies in the child's evidence and to weigh them against the appellant's evidence. The court also held that the alleged error in the admission of evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the jury had been properly directed and that the verdicts were open to them on the evidence. Therefore, the appeal against the conviction was 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 GW [2006] QCA 479
PARTIES:	R v GW (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 252 of 2006 DC No 248 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 November 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 November 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of indecent treatment of a child under his care and one count of rape - where complainant child was appellant's stepdaughter - where complaint was made approximately two years after offences had occurred - where there were inconsistencies in complainant's evidence - where appellant's evidence at trial differed from what he had previously said to police - where appellant contends that verdicts were unreasonable on the evidence - whether jury was satisfied of appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where appellant also contends that inadmissible evidence was led at trial - whether trial judge should have allowed a witness to be asked if the appellant had told her of a conversation this witness was alleged to have had with another witness - whether asking that question resulted in a miscarriage of justice MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606, applied
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC, with J S Veivers, for appellant M J Copley for respondent
SOLICITORS:	MDRN Solicitors for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent