R v HCQ - [2024] QCA 93

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HCQ [2024] QCA 93

PARTIES:

R
v
HCQ
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 59 of 2023
DC No 120 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction: 9 March 2023 (Wooldridge KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 March 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Dalton JA and Kelly J

ORDER:

The appeal be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of rape after a jury trial – where the appellant emphasised inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, noted the complainant’s poor memory, and questioned whether or not the complainant had a motive to lie – where these matters were for the jury – whether the jury must have had a reasonable doubt about guilt such that the verdict was unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of rape on count 1 and acquitted on counts 2 and 3 – where the evidence which related to count 1 on the one hand, and counts 2 and 3 on the other, was different in material respects – whether the verdict of guilty was inconsistent with the other verdicts

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12, cited
R v Silcock [2022] QCA 234, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M P Le Grand for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MULLINS P: I agree with Dalton JA.
DALTON JA: Mr HCQ acts for himself in appealing against a conviction for rape after a jury trial in March 2023. The ground of appeal in his notice of appeal is that the conviction was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence. In his outline of written submissions he also raised the point that, having faced three counts of rape and being acquitted on two, the verdict of guilty was inconsistent with the other verdicts. The Crown accepted that the appeal should be heard as if both grounds were before the Court. In my view, both grounds fail and the appeal ought to be dismissed. I will deal with the unreasonable verdict ground first.
Unreasonable Verdict
The Crown case was that the appellant married the complainant in the mid‑1990s when she was in her mid‑20s and he was about 20. Both the complainant and appellant were members of a church which regarded anal intercourse as a sin. The complainant’s evidence was that over the course of the marriage, lasting several years, the appellant forced her to engage in anal intercourse on literally hundreds of occasions without her…

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 HCQ

Details

AGLC: R v HCQ [2024] QCA 93
Case: [2024] QCA 93
Decision Date: 24 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v HCQ, the appellant was convicted by a jury of the crime of rape in relation to count 1 of the indictment. The appellant was acquitted on counts 2 and 3 of the indictment, which also related to allegations of sexual offences. The appellant sought an appeal against the conviction, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and that the verdict of guilty on count 1 was inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 2 and 3. The court was required to determine whether the appeal should be allowed, and whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable.

The court considered the evidence presented at trial, and the arguments made by both the appellant and the prosecution. The court noted that the appellant had emphasised inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, the complainant’s poor memory, and questioned whether or not the complainant had a motive to lie. However, the court held that these matters were for the jury to consider, and that the jury was entitled to accept or reject any part of the evidence before them. The court held that the appellant’s arguments did not demonstrate that the jury must have had a reasonable doubt about guilt such that the verdict was unreasonable. The court also considered the appellant’s argument that the verdict of guilty on count 1 was inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 2 and 3. The court held that the evidence which related to count 1 on the one hand, and counts 2 and 3 on the other, was different in material respects, and that the jury was entitled to convict the appellant on count 1 and acquit on counts 2 and 3.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the jury’s verdict was open to them on the evidence before them, and that the appellant’s arguments did not demonstrate that the verdict was unreasonable or inconsistent. The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be 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 HCQ [2024] QCA 93
PARTIES:	R v HCQ (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 59 of 2023 DC No 120 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction: 9 March 2023 (Wooldridge KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	24 May 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 March 2024
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Dalton JA and Kelly J
ORDER:	The appeal be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of rape after a jury trial – where the appellant emphasised inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, noted the complainant’s poor memory, and questioned whether or not the complainant had a motive to lie – where these matters were for the jury – whether the jury must have had a reasonable doubt about guilt such that the verdict was unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of rape on count 1 and acquitted on counts 2 and 3 – where the evidence which related to count 1 on the one hand, and counts 2 and 3 on the other, was different in material respects – whether the verdict of guilty was inconsistent with the other verdicts M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12, cited R v Silcock [2022] QCA 234, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf M P Le Grand for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent