R v Holdsworth

[2002] QCA 432

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Holdsworth [2002] QCA 432

PARTIES:

R
v
HOLDSWORTH, Anthony James
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 167 of 2002
DC No 55 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

16 October 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 October 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies JA and Cullinane 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS –MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - where appellant convicted of one count of rape – where appellant contends learned trial judge erred in failing to direct jury regarding inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence – where appellant contends learned trial judge erred in failing to properly direct the jury in accordance with Longman v R – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

Crampton v R (2000) 117 A CrimR 222, referred to
Doggett v R (2001) 182 ALR 1, referred to
Driscoll v R (1977) 137 CLR 517, referred to
Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79, considered
Morris v R (1987) 163 CLR 454, referred to
R v C [2002] QCA 166, CA No 267 of 2001, 14 May 2002, referred to

COUNSEL:

N V Weston for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE PRESIDENT: The appellant was convicted of committing rape upon his stepdaughter on an unknown date between 31 December 1990 and 1 October 1992. The appellant appeals against that conviction. The amended grounds of his appeal are that the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory, the learned trial Judge erred in failing to direct the jury regarding inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and that the learned trial Judge erred in failing to properly direct the jury in accordance with Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79.

The case against the appellant turned primarily on the complainant's evidence which was as follows.  The complainant was 22 years old at the trial.  She knew the appellant as her stepfather since she was about four years old when he formed a de facto relationship with her mother.  The complainant, her mother and her younger siblings moved from Sydney to Queensland.  They eventually settled in a large provincial town in South-East Queensland where the complainant lived with her mother and four siblings.  The appellant lived at a property about 30 kilometres away.  He was the natural father of her three siblings.  The three older children, including the complainant, visited him regularly on weekends.

On one such visit the appellant showed her "a picture of Victorian erotica" and made comments about it not being right in most cultures that a father cannot initiate his daughter.  That night she put on her nightie and was reading…