R v HBM - [2014] QCA 331

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HBM [2014] QCA 331

PARTIES:

R
v
HBM
(appellant)

FILE NO:

CA No 64 of 2014
DC No 289 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 September 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Applegarth 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 – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of numerous sexual offences against two minors – where the appellant claimed each complainant was not a credible or reliable witnesses – whether the jury’s verdict was unsafe or unreasonable in light of the evidence

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, [1994] HCA 63, cited
Michaelides v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 456; [2013] HCA 9, cited
R v PAH[2008] QCA 265, cited
R v Thaiday[2009] QCA 27, cited

COUNSEL:

S Holt QC for the appellant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Applegarth J and the order he proposes.

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Applegarth J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

APPLEGARTH J: The appellant was convicted at trial on 18 counts involving the sexual abuse of two sisters. Counts 1 – 12 related to the child complainant S. Counts 13 – 18 related to the child complainant D, S’s younger sister.

The complainants’ mother, J, and the appellant had two children before their relationship ended. The appellant started a relationship with T. Most of the counts on the indictment concern a period between October 2007 and July 2008 when the appellant acted as a driver and minder for T, J and another woman who worked as prostitutes. On some occasions one of the complainants would accompany the appellant when he dropped the women at a client’s place. The appellant would park his van in a nearby secluded place and wait for the woman to phone. Sexual offences were alleged to have occurred in the van during these waiting periods. This course of conduct against each complainant was at the heart of the counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (Counts 1 and 13).

The appeal

The only ground of appeal is that the verdicts “were unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence”. The appeal is about the credibility and reliability of each complainant’s evidence.

The principal challenge to the evidence of S concerns the sequence of her disclosures which commenced in 2008, her explanations for failing to previously disclose offending and the apparent improvement in her memory. The appellant submits that when…

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 HBM

Details

AGLC: R v HBM [2014] QCA 331
Case: [2014] QCA 331
Decision Date: 16 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by the appellant, who sought to overturn their conviction for various sexual offences against two minors. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court, where the appellant argued that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and could not be sustained given the evidence presented. The appellant contended that each of the complainants was not credible or reliable, and therefore, the jury's findings were unsafe.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, taking into account the evidence presented during the trial. The court was required to assess the weight and credibility of the complainants' testimonies, as well as any other relevant evidence, to determine if the jury's decision was justifiable. The court also needed to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the unreliability of the complainants and whether these arguments were sufficient to warrant a new trial.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence presented during the trial, including the testimonies of the complainants, any expert evidence, and other relevant material. The court found that the jury was entitled to assess the credibility of the witnesses and had not acted irrationally in reaching their verdict. The court concluded that the jury's decision was not unreasonable or insupportable, given the evidence before them, and therefore dismissed the appeal against the conviction.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The appellant's conviction for the various sexual offences against the two minors was upheld, and no new trial was ordered. The court's judgment confirmed the jury's verdict and reinforced the importance of the jury's role in assessing the credibility of witnesses in criminal trials.

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 HBM [2014] QCA 331
PARTIES:	R v HBM (appellant)
FILE NO:	CA No 64 of 2014 DC No 289 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	16 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 September 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Applegarth 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 – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of numerous sexual offences against two minors – where the appellant claimed each complainant was not a credible or reliable witnesses – whether the jury’s verdict was unsafe or unreasonable in light of the evidence M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, [1994] HCA 63, cited Michaelides v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 456; [2013] HCA 9, cited R v PAH[2008] QCA 265, cited R v Thaiday[2009] QCA 27, cited
COUNSEL:	S Holt QC for the appellant B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent