R v Hughes - [1998] QCA 279

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 279
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 161 of 1998
Brisbane
[R. v. Hughes]

THE QUEEN
v.
GARY ALAN HUGHES
Appellant
________________________________________________________________________
McMurdo P.
McPherson J.A.
Ambrose J.

_________________________________________________________________________
Judgment delivered 18 September 1998
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the
orders made.
_________________________________________________________________________
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION ALLOWED. CONVICTIONS QUASHED.
RETRIAL ORDERED.
________________________________________________________________________
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Rape - directions - whether trial judge erred in directing the jury that evidence of the accused constituted lies capable of corroborating the complainant’s account - whether trial judge erred in directing the jury that the complainant’s virginity could be used to determine question of consent
Allingham v. R. [1991] 1 Qd.R. 429
R. v. Doolan [1962] Qd.R. 449
R. v. Hart [1979] Qd.R. 8
Edwards v. R. [1993] 178 C.L.R. 193
Criminal Code s.668E(1A)
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978-87 s.4

Counsel:

Mrs D. Richards for the appellant Mr P. Rutledge for the respondent
Solicitors: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecution (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 2 September 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McMURDO P.

Judgment delivered 18 September 1998
1        The appellant appeals against his conviction in the District Court at Townsville on 8 April 1998 on three counts of rape, two counts of attempted rape and three counts of indecent assault with circumstances of aggravation.
2        The appellant originally claimed ten grounds of appeal, but now wishes to argue only two grounds. Firstly, he claims that the learned trial judge erred in directing the jury that the general evidence of the accused constitutes lies capable of corroborating the account of the complainant. Secondly, he has been given leave to add a fresh ground of appeal, namely that the learned trial judge erred in directing the jury that the complainant’s virginity could be used by the jury to determine the issue of consent in relation to this case.
The facts
3        The complainant was a 20 year old German woman who was travelling around Australia. She was working at Bluey’s Horse Ranch on Magnetic Island in exchange for food and accommodation. The appellant was also staying on the farm.
4        The appellant’s case was that sexual intercourse and other acts took place with consent or with his honest and reasonable belief that the complainant was consenting.
5        The complainant gave evidence that she resided in a small house on the farm with the appellant, a man called Graham Steele and two other girls. The females slept in one room and the males in another. She spent a lot of time with the complainant, both working and socialising, in the ten days prior to the offences.
6        On her third day on the farm, she agreed to give him a massage and was a little surprised to find him naked on a bed in his room. She gave him a massage and he asked if she would like a massage. She agreed,…

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 Hughes

Details

AGLC: R v Hughes [1998] QCA 279
Case: [1998] QCA 279
Decision Date: 18/09/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hughes, the appellant, Gary Alan Hughes, appealed against his conviction on multiple counts of rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault with aggravation. The trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the appellant's alleged lies and the relevance of the complainant's virginity to the issue of consent were the central legal issues before the court. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in directing the jury that his statements could be considered lies corroborating the complainant's account, and that the complainant's virginity could be used to determine consent. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to consider the appellant's statements as lies without clear evidence of their untruthfulness, and in directing the jury that the complainant's virginity was relevant to the issue of consent. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a retrial. The court emphasized the importance of proper legal directions to the jury and the potential consequences of errors in these directions, particularly in cases where the credibility of the parties is central to the outcome.

Orders