R v Haz

[2010] QCA 249

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HAZ [2010] QCA 249

PARTIES:

R
v
HAZ
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 49 of 2010
DC No 947 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2010

JUDGES:

Muir and Chesterman JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    The appeal is allowed.

2.    Convictions on each of counts 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are quashed.

3.    Verdicts of acquittal on each of the above counts are entered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where appellant charged with 17 counts of indecently dealing with a girl under the age of 14, 12 counts of indecently dealing with a girl under the age of 16, 4 counts of indecent assault and one count of rape – where 6 counts were withdrawn for lack of evidence – where appellant convicted of 18 counts of indecent dealing but acquitted of all other charges – where complainant was appellant’s step-daughter – where approximately 20 years passed between the time of the offences and trial – where complainant’s memory was unreliable – where complainant invented parts of her evidence – where appellant convicted of one count not the subject of any evidence – where complainant falsely implicated appellant in a feared pregnancy – whether the complainant’s evidence lacked credibility – whether there was a logical explanation for the jury’s inconsistent verdicts – whether the jury could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt

Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56, applied
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, followed
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, applied
R v SBL[2009] QCA 130, followed

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. MUIR JA:  I agree with the reasons of Chesterman JA and with his proposed orders.

1. CHESTERMAN JA:  On 22 February 2010 the appellant was arraigned on an indictment which charged him with:

(a) 17 counts of indecently dealing with a girl under the age of 14;

(b)12 counts of indecently dealing with a girl under the age of 16;

(c)         4 counts of indecent assault;
(d)         1 count of rape.

After a five day trial, on 26 February 2010 the appellant was convicted of:

(e)         10 counts of indecently dealing with a girl under 14;
(f)          8 counts of indecently dealing with a girl under 16;

but acquitted of:

(g)         5 counts of indecently…