R v Horne - [2022] QCA 90

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Horne [2022] QCA 90

PARTIES:

R
v
HORNE, Cameron David
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 3 of 2022
DC No 2775 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 17 December 2021 (Kent QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2022

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison and Mullins JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PATICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant plead not guilty to four counts of rape and one count of unlawful and indecent assault – where the appellant was in their mid-sixties at the time of offending – where the appellant was intoxicated at the time of offending – whether a defence under s 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Qld) is available if the appellant is intoxicated to any extent

Criminal Code (Qld), s 23, s 26, s 27, s 28

Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209; [1973] HCA 35, considered
R v Corbett [1903] St R Qd 246, considered
R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49, considered
R v Kusu [1981] Qd R 136, followed
R v O’Connor (1980) 146 CLR 64; [1980] HCA 17, explained
Re Bromage [1991] 1 Qd R 1, considered
Stefanski v Western Australia [2022] WASCA 5, considered

COUNSEL:

S C Holt QC, with Z G Brereton, for the appellant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McGinness and Associates for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: The appellant is a man in his early sixties. For most of his life he worked for a large Australian bank where he eventually became the manager of an important part of its business in Queensland. After many years he left the bank and began to work as an intermediary between lenders and their customers. He has a long and enduring marriage and three successful adult children. He has never been convicted of any offence.
The appellant was invited to a lunch party to be held on 17 October 2018 in a venue at a marina. His friend who invited him told him that it would be a “big lunch” and that it would feature a mud crab menu. There would be several “bankers” at the lunch and its purpose appears to have been to permit the guests to “network”.[1]
[1]AB at 253.27-253.33, 27.44.
The appellant had recently suffered some health complications and for that reason he had been prescribed a series of antibiotic medicines. On the day before the lunch the appellant consulted his general practitioner and told him that he intended attending a lunch and drinking alcohol there. He had ceased taking the antibiotics on that day, the day before the lunch. He had not drunk any alcohol for a while because he knew that he ought not…

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 Horne

Details

AGLC: R v Horne [2022] QCA 90
Case: [2022] QCA 90
Decision Date: 24 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus Horne, the appellant contested charges brought against him on four counts of rape and one count of unlawful and indecent assault. The appellant, who was in his mid-sixties at the time of the alleged offences, was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Queensland. The appellant's defence was that he was too intoxicated to form the requisite intent for any of the crimes. The appellant appealed against his convictions on the grounds that the trial judge should have directed the jury that a defence under section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Qld) is available if the appellant was intoxicated to any extent.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge should have directed the jury that a defence under section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Qld) is available if the appellant was intoxicated to any extent, and whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury regarding the appellant's intoxication. The Court of Appeal considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law, and concluded that the trial judge had not erred in his directions to the jury. The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's intoxication did not provide a defence to the charges, as the appellant's intoxication did not negate the requisite intent for the crimes charged. The Court of Appeal also held that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the issue of the appellant's intoxication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against his convictions. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not erred in his directions to the jury, and that the appellant's intoxication did not provide a defence to the charges. The Court of Appeal further held that there were no other grounds on which the appellant's appeal could succeed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed his convictions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Horne [2022] QCA 90
PARTIES:	R v HORNE, Cameron David (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 3 of 2022 DC No 2775 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 17 December 2021 (Kent QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	24 May 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 April 2022
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Morrison and Mullins JJA
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PATICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant plead not guilty to four counts of rape and one count of unlawful and indecent assault – where the appellant was in their mid-sixties at the time of offending – where the appellant was intoxicated at the time of offending – whether a defence under s 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (Qld) is available if the appellant is intoxicated to any extent Criminal Code (Qld), s 23, s 26, s 27, s 28 Kaporonovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209; [1973] HCA 35, considered R v Corbett [1903] St R Qd 246, considered R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49, considered R v Kusu [1981] Qd R 136, followed R v O’Connor (1980) 146 CLR 64; [1980] HCA 17, explained Re Bromage [1991] 1 Qd R 1, considered Stefanski v Western Australia [2022] WASCA 5, considered
COUNSEL:	S C Holt QC, with Z G Brereton, for the appellant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	McGinness and Associates for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent