R v Hopwood

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hopwood [2001] QCA 565

PARTIES:

R
v
HOPWOOD, Leslie Ronald
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 172 of 2001
DC No 53 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Innisfail

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 November 2001

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA, Mackenzie J
Separate reasons of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES - appellant was convicted of one count of taking a child for immoral purposes and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 – appeal against conviction – whether the conviction, based solely on the evidence of a five year old child given by video taped interview under s 93A Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) was reasonably open – where judge gave careful and detailed directions concerning the use of this evidence – where verdict was reasonably open on the evidence – no miscarriage of justice.

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 93, s 93A

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193, considered

COUNSEL:

M Byrne QC for the appellant
C Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. McMURDO P: The appellant was convicted in the District Court at Innisfail on 14 June 2001 of one count of taking a child for immoral purposes and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12. The offences occurred on or about 4 September 2000. The appellant appeals against his conviction, claiming that it is based solely on the evidence of the five year old complainant child given by way of a video taped interview under s 93A Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)[1] and that this evidence leaves open a real doubt as to the appellant's guilt.

   [1]This provision allows for a statement to be admissible as evidence of the facts contained in it if the maker of the statement is, inter alia, a child under 12; the statement was made soon after the occurrence of the fact to a person investigating the matter and the child is available to give evidence in the proceeding.

The evidence

1. The appellant was a close platonic friend of the mother of the complainant child's friend, S.  S's mother was a sole parent.  S was three and a half and the complainant five at the time of the offences.  The appellant was also an acquaintance of the complainant's parents and would sometimes bring S to play with the complainant.  The appellant and S invited the complainant to sleep over at S's home and the complainant's mother agreed, provided it was convenient to S's mother. The complainant's father believed the complainant would spend the sleepover at S's home, not at the…