R v HMN

[2022] QCA 3

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HMN [2022] QCA 3

PARTIES:

R
v
HMN
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 177 of 2020
DC No 543 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction: 6 August 2020 (Moynihan QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

4 February 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 September 2021

JUDGES:

Fraser and Mullins JJA and Freeburn J

ORDERS:

1.   The application for leave to adduce new evidence is refused.

2.   The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – MISCONDUCT OF PROSECUTOR – where the appellant was convicted after trial of four counts of rape – where the appellant was sentenced to six and a half years imprisonment with no parole recommendation – whether the prosecutor expressed personal opinions – whether the prosecutor made inappropriate comments – whether the prosecutor made inflammatory statements – whether the prosecutor used rhetorical questions – whether the prosecutor made implied criticisms of the defendant’s counsel – whether the prosecutor omitted evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – JUDGE’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCONDUCT – whether the trial judge ought to have intervened by stopping the prosecutor during their address – whether the trial judge ought to have discharged the jury at the close of the prosecutor’s address

CRIMINAL LAW – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – JUDGE ERRED IN SUMMING UP – whether judge used emotive language – whether the identified language was emotive – whether the trial judge made incorrect statements in their summing up – whether the title used for exhibit C was confusing to the jury – whether the judge ought to have made a direction

CRIMINAL LAW – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – UNSAFE AND UNREASONABLE VERDICT – where the appellant contends that the conviction by the jury was unreasonable – whether the inconsistencies, discrepancies, and/or other evidence advanced by the appellant ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds – whether the judge gave inconsistent directions to the jury

Fennell v The Queen (2019) 93 ALJR 1219; [2019] HCA 37, cited
Hughes v The Queen (2015) 93 NSWLR 474; [2015] NSWCCA 330, cited
Nguyen v The Queen (2020) 269 CLR 299; [2020] HCA 23, cited
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12, cited
R v Miller[2021] QCA 126, cited

COUNSEL:

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

SOLICITORS:

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

1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Freeburn J and the orders proposed by his Honour.

2. MULLINS JA:  I agree with Freeburn J.

3. FREEBURN J:  On 5 August 2020, a jury found the appellant guilty of four counts of rape following a trial before Moynihan QC DCJ, and a jury, in the District Court at Ipswich.

4. At the trial, the appellant was…