R v Hopper - [1993] QCA 561

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 561

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 337 of 1993

Brisbane
[R. v. Hopper]

BETWEEN

T H E Q U E E N
v.

GLENN MARTIN HOPPER
(Appellant)
The Chief Justice
Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Pincus

Judgment delivered on 20/12/93

Reasons for judgment by the Court

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS CRIMINAL LAW - Rape - Section 347 Criminal Code (Qld) - Whether trial judge failed to direct on intoxication and intent - Section 28 Criminal Code (Qld.) - Rape not an offence of specific intent - Whether corroborative evidence of bruising, distress etc. implicated the accused - Whether trial judge's direction on corroboration correct - Consent and interrelationship with mistake of fact - Section 24 Criminal Code (Qld) - Whether a mistaken belief induced by intoxication can be reasonable.

Counsel:

P. Nolan for the appellant
P. Callaghan for the respondent

Solicitors:

Gabrielle Ruddy & Garrett, t/a for Allan Dick,
Southport, for the appellant

Director of Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing

Date:

November

1993

THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 337 of 1993

Brisbane

Before

The Chief Justice
Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Pincus

[R. v. Hopper]

BETWEEN

T H E Q U E E N
v.

GLENN MARTIN HOPPER
(Appellant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
Judgment delivered the 20th day of December 1993

This is an appeal by Glenn Martin Hopper against his conviction on a count of rape, another of indecent assault with circumstances of aggravation, and a further count of indecent assault. An application for leave to appeal against sentence was not pursued and was dismissed during the hearing of the appeal.

The events giving rise to the three charges took place at the Gold Coast on 15 January 1993. The appellant was charged with one Scott Allan McLeod, who was referred to throughout the proceedings as "Red". At an early stage, the learned trial judge acceded to an application that McLeod be tried separately from the appellant. The trial then continued against the appellant alone, leading to verdicts of guilty in the case of the three offences mentioned.

At the trial the case for the Crown was that in the course of a night out the complainant, who is a 17 year old woman living on the Gold Coast, accompanied two male friends to a warehouse which apparently serves as a clubhouse for a group known as the Black Uhlans bikies, arriving there at about 4 a.m. on 15 January. While having a drink in the bar downstairs, she struck up a conversation with McLeod on the subject of his tattoos. He asked if she would like to see the "gear" he used for doing tattoos. She said she would, and followed him to a room upstairs.

The room was a living area with a bed of a kind as well as equipment used in the business of tattooing. McLeod pushed her on to the bed and began kissing her. He suppressed…

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 Hopper

Details

AGLC: R v Hopper [1993] QCA 561
Case: [1993] QCA 561
Decision Date: 20/12/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Glenn Martin Hopper appealed against his conviction for rape, aggravated indecent assault, and indecent assault following an incident at a Gold Coast bikie clubhouse. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no legal errors warranting a new trial. The appeal raised issues about the trial judge's directions on intoxication, intent, and the requirement for corroboration. The court held that while the trial judge's redirection contained some confusion, it did not result in a misdirection that could have affected the jury's verdict. The jury's verdict indicated they did not consider the appellant's belief, influenced by intoxication, to be reasonable. The court also rejected the argument that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury on the use of corroborative evidence. The medical evidence and the complainant's condition after the incident were deemed sufficient to corroborate her testimony regarding the appellant's actions. The court concluded that the conviction should stand as the trial judge's directions, though imperfectly phrased, did not lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Orders