R v Hunt - [1994] QCA 226

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 226

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 71 of 1994

Brisbane
[R. v. Hunt]

BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N
v.
PAUL ROSS HUNT

Appellant

Fitzgerald P.
Pincus JA.
Shepherdson J.

Judgment delivered 22/06/94
Reasons for judgment of The President, Pincus JA, Shepherdson J.

All concurring as to the order made.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - directions to jury - rape - appellant raped and indecently assaulted ex-de facto - complainant attempted to lock the appellant out of her house and to escape - complainant later verbally consented to intercourse - whether the issue of reasonable and honest mistake arose on the evidence - whether the trial judge should have directed the jury as to the issue of mistake

Counsel:Mr. R. Lynch for the appellant

Mr. P. Callaghan for the respondent

Solicitors:Legal Aid Office for the appellant

Director of Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date:18/05/94

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE PRESIDENT
Judgment delivered 22/06/94

This is an appeal by the appellant from two convictions for rape in the District Court at Southport on 2nd February, 1994. The appellant was also convicted of assault causing bodily harm and indecent assault. All offences involved the some complainant, a middle-aged woman with whom the appellant had previously lived in a de facto relationship. The sole ground of appeal argued, which related only to the two counts of rape, was that the trial judge erred in not directing the jury to consider whether the appellant might have had an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that the complainant consented to the two acts of vaginal sexual intercourse which admittedly occurred between them on 2 June 1993: Criminal Code, s.24

The appellant and the complainant had ceased cohabiting in January 1993, but remained in contact and had sexual intercourse on about four occasions between the date they separated and the beginning of June that year. Further, while they lived together, their acts of sexual intercourse were sometimes preceded or accompanied by threats or violence. On occasions, the appellant punched the complainant, once he held a gun to her head and threatened to kill her if she did not take her clothes off, and once he cut and once he ripped her clothes off. The complainant did not complain to any authority about these incidents or leave the appellant because of them. The nature of the relationship between the appellant and the complainant while they lived together formed a foundation of the submissions for the appellant based on section 24 of the Code.
Counsel for the appellant based his argument upon the complainant's testimony, which he accepted must have been believed by the jury. The appellant gave evidence, which it was agreed the jury must have rejected. The appellant's account of the events of 2 June was of a consensual, loving interlude, involving fond words and gestures, kissing and cuddling and a complete absence of force. According to the appellant, when he departed, the complainant…

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 Hunt

Details

AGLC: R v Hunt [1994] QCA 226
Case: [1994] QCA 226
Decision Date: 22/06/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal, the appellant, Paul Ross Hunt, appealed against his convictions for rape, assault causing bodily harm, and indecent assault. The appeal pertained specifically to the two counts of rape. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in not directing the jury to consider whether he had an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that the complainant consented to the acts of vaginal sexual intercourse. The complainant and the appellant had ended their de facto relationship but continued to have sexual intercourse on several occasions. The nature of their relationship, which involved violence and threats, was a key point in the appellant's argument under section 24 of the Criminal Code.

The court examined whether there was any basis upon which a reasonable jury could doubt that the appellant honestly and reasonably, but mistakenly, believed the complainant consented. The court noted that the appellant's evidence of consensual intercourse, coupled with the complainant's testimony of non-consent, created an inherent inconsistency. The court held that the circumstances surrounding the incidents, including the complainant's efforts to exclude the appellant and her resistance, did not support any reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's belief in consent. The court concluded that there was no evidence of operative mistake sufficient to warrant leaving the issue to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence did not support the appellant's claim of an honest and reasonable mistake regarding the complainant's consent. The reasoning of the trial judge in not directing the jury on the issue of mistake was affirmed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders