R v Hansen - [2012] QCA 156

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hansen [2012] QCA 156

PARTIES:

R
v
HANSEN, Andrew Graham
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 332 of 2011
DC No 1767 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2012

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of the child complainant – where the appellant appeals the convictions on the basis that the verdicts were unreasonable – where the appellant contends there were inconsistencies between versions of events given by the child complainant in her initial complaints, police interview and pre-recorded evidence – where the appellant contends that the inconsistencies rendered the convictions unsafe – whether there were inconsistencies in the child complainant’s accounts – whether the verdicts reached were unreasonable and amounted to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of the child complainant – where the appellant contends that the trial judge erred by giving the jury an inaccurate 'Robinson' direction – where the appellant alleges that the complainant’s youth and inconsistencies in her evidence were not adequately addressed by the trial judge in the direction – whether the direction amounted to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – TAKING OBJECTION TO SUMMING UP – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of the child complainant – where the appellant’s defence counsel did not formally put to the complainant in cross-examination that the offences did not occur – where the trial judge made reference in summing up to the Crown counsel’s compliance with the rule in Browne v Dunn – whether the trial judge’s reference to the rule resulted in a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67, considered
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60, considered
R v MAP[2006] QCA 220, distinguished
Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42, considered
Tully v The Queen (2006) 230 CLR 234; [2006] HCA 56, considered

COUNSEL:

R B Carroll for the appellant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Harper Finch Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: The appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of a ten year…

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 Hansen

Details

AGLC: R v Hansen [2012] QCA 156
Case: [2012] QCA 156
Decision Date: 15 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hansen, was convicted by a jury of two counts of raping a child complainant. Hansen appealed against the convictions on multiple grounds, including the contention that the verdicts were unreasonable and that the trial judge gave an inaccurate direction to the jury regarding the child complainant’s evidence. Hansen further argued that his defence counsel's failure to formally object to the Crown counsel's adherence to the rule in Browne v Dunn during cross-examination, and the trial judge's subsequent reference to the rule in summing up, amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether there were inconsistencies in the child complainant’s accounts that rendered the convictions unsafe, whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was accurate and adequately addressed the issues of the complainant’s youth and inconsistencies, and whether the trial judge's reference to the rule in Browne v Dunn in summing up resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court needed to assess the credibility and consistency of the child complainant's testimony, the adequacy of the jury direction, and the impact of the trial judge's summing up on the fairness of the trial.

The court found that there were no significant inconsistencies in the child complainant's accounts that would render the verdicts unreasonable. The court also held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was accurate and appropriately addressed the issues of the complainant’s youth and any inconsistencies in her evidence. Furthermore, the court concluded that the trial judge’s reference to the rule in Browne v Dunn did not prejudice the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court dismissed Hansen's appeal.

The court found no merit in Hansen’s appeal and upheld his convictions for the two counts of rape.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is 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 Hansen [2012] QCA 156
PARTIES:	R v HANSEN, Andrew Graham (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 332 of 2011 DC No 1767 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 June 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 May 2012
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of the child complainant – where the appellant appeals the convictions on the basis that the verdicts were unreasonable – where the appellant contends there were inconsistencies between versions of events given by the child complainant in her initial complaints, police interview and pre-recorded evidence – where the appellant contends that the inconsistencies rendered the convictions unsafe – whether there were inconsistencies in the child complainant’s accounts – whether the verdicts reached were unreasonable and amounted to a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of the child complainant – where the appellant contends that the trial judge erred by giving the jury an inaccurate 'Robinson' direction – where the appellant alleges that the complainant’s youth and inconsistencies in her evidence were not adequately addressed by the trial judge in the direction – whether the direction amounted to a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – TAKING OBJECTION TO SUMMING UP – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of the child complainant – where the appellant’s defence counsel did not formally put to the complainant in cross-examination that the offences did not occur – where the trial judge made reference in summing up to the Crown counsel’s compliance with the rule in Browne v Dunn – whether the trial judge’s reference to the rule resulted in a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67, considered Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60, considered R v MAP[2006] QCA 220, distinguished Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42, considered Tully v The Queen (2006) 230 CLR 234; [2006] HCA 56, considered
COUNSEL:	R B Carroll for the appellant B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Harper Finch Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent