R v HCW - [2025] QCA 90

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HCW [2025] QCA 90

PARTIES:

R
v
HCW
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 219 of 2024
DC No 69 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay – Date of Conviction: 27 September 2024 (Porter KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2025

JUDGES:

Flanagan JA, Burns and Cooper JJ

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of one count of rape – where the appellant was acquitted of another count of rape against the same complainant and one count of indecent assault against a different complainant –– whether the verdicts of conviction and acquittal were an unacceptable affront to logic and common sense – whether the verdicts of conviction and acquittal suggested that the jury compromised their duty or were confused or misunderstood their function – whether the verdict of conviction could be reconciled with the verdicts of acquittal

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of one count of rape –whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence – whether, after a review of the evidence given at trial, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, followed
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, followed
R v CCX [2022] QCA 260, cited
R v CX [2006] QCA 409, cited
R v Fanning [2017] QCA 244, cited

COUNSEL:
C Reid for the appellant

M A Green for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Office Queensland for the appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FLANAGAN JA: I agree with Burns J.
BURNS J: On 27 September 2024, the appellant, HCW, was found guilty by a jury of one count of rape following a five-day trial in the District Court at Mackay. He appeals against that conviction on two grounds: first, that the verdict was inconsistent with acquittals returned with respect to other counts on the indictment; and, second, that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.
The trial
The appellant faced an indictment charging five counts, as follows:
Count 1 – between 11 May 2020 and 15 September 2021 – rape;
Count 2 – between 5 October 2020 and 8 September 2021 – rape or, in the alternative, indecent dealing with a person with an impairment of the mind, under care;
Count 3 – between 5 October 2020 and 8 September 2021 – rape or, in the alternative, indecent dealing with a person with an impairment of the…

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 HCW

Details

AGLC: R v HCW [2025] QCA 90
Case: [2025] QCA 90
Decision Date: 3 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v HCW, the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of rape against a complainant, but acquitted of another count of rape against the same complainant and one count of indecent assault against a different complainant. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the inconsistent verdicts were an unacceptable affront to logic and common sense, and suggested that the jury had compromised their duty or were confused or misunderstood their function. The appellant also contended that the verdict of conviction was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence.

The court considered the arguments advanced by the appellant and examined the evidence given at trial. The court held that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant on the count of rape of which he was convicted, and that the verdicts of acquittal on the other counts did not necessarily indicate that the jury had compromised their duty or were confused or misunderstood their function. The court also held that the verdict of conviction could be reconciled with the verdicts of acquittal, as the jury may have found that the appellant was guilty of the offence of rape as charged, but not guilty of the other offences as charged. The court dismissed the appeal.

The court did not consider it necessary to make any orders in relation to the other counts of which the appellant was acquitted.

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 HCW [2025] QCA 90
PARTIES:	R v HCW (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 219 of 2024 DC No 69 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay – Date of Conviction: 27 September 2024 (Porter KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	3 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 April 2025
JUDGES:	Flanagan JA, Burns and Cooper JJ
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of one count of rape – where the appellant was acquitted of another count of rape against the same complainant and one count of indecent assault against a different complainant –– whether the verdicts of conviction and acquittal were an unacceptable affront to logic and common sense – whether the verdicts of conviction and acquittal suggested that the jury compromised their duty or were confused or misunderstood their function – whether the verdict of conviction could be reconciled with the verdicts of acquittal CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of one count of rape –whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence – whether, after a review of the evidence given at trial, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, followed MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, followed R v CCX [2022] QCA 260, cited R v CX [2006] QCA 409, cited R v Fanning [2017] QCA 244, cited
COUNSEL:	C Reid for the appellant M A Green for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Office Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent