R v JL - [2007] QCA 131

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v JL [2007] QCA 131

PARTIES:

R
v
JL
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 353 of 2006
DC No 3304 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 April 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 April 2007

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Jerrard and Keane JJA
Separate reasons for judgment 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 – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship, unlawful carnal knowledge and indecent dealing – where appellant acquitted of other sexual offences – whether verdicts were inconsistent

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where complainant gave conflicting evidence on one count of unlawful carnal knowledge – where learned trial judge gave directions as to effect of complainant's credibility in relation to other counts – whether directions were adequate

BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275, cited

Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied

MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, applied

MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606, applied

R v Ford [2006] QCA 142; CA No 260 of 2004, 5 May 2006, distinguished

R v JK [2005] QCA 307; CA No 78 of 2005, 23 August 2005, considered

R v LR [2005] QCA 368; [2006] 1 Qd R 435, distinguished

R v M [2001] QCA 458; CA No 126 of 2001, 26 October 2001, considered

R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82, considered

R v Rutherford [2004] QCA 481;CA 295 of 2004, 17 December 2004, considered

COUNSEL:

S J Hamlyn-Harris for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for those reasons.

JERRARD JA: In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Keane JA and respectfully agree with those and the orders that His Honour proposes.

KEANE JA: On 24 November 2006, the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of maintaining an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with a child under 16 years of age, one count of unlawful carnal knowledge of a child under 16 years of age and two counts of indecent dealing with a child under 16 years of age. These were counts 5 to 8 in the indictment. The appellant was acquitted of a number of other counts of sexual offences. These were…

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 JL

Details

AGLC: R v JL [2007] QCA 131
Case: [2007] QCA 131
Decision Date: 20 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted by a jury in the County Court of Victoria of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship, unlawful carnal knowledge and indecent dealing. The appellant was acquitted of other sexual offences. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the verdicts were inconsistent and that the learned trial judge misdirected the jury. The Court of Appeal was required to consider whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the learned trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no inconsistency in the verdicts, as the jury was entitled to find that the appellant was guilty of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship, unlawful carnal knowledge and indecent dealing, but not guilty of the other sexual offences. The Court also found that the learned trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate, as they enabled the jury to assess the complainant's credibility in relation to each count. The Court held that the appeal was without merit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court found that the verdicts were not inconsistent and that the learned trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate. The Court held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it.

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 JL [2007] QCA 131
PARTIES:	R v JL (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 353 of 2006 DC No 3304 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 April 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 April 2007
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Jerrard and Keane JJA Separate reasons for judgment 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 – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship, unlawful carnal knowledge and indecent dealing – where appellant acquitted of other sexual offences – whether verdicts were inconsistent CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – OTHER MATTERS – where complainant gave conflicting evidence on one count of unlawful carnal knowledge – where learned trial judge gave directions as to effect of complainant's credibility in relation to other counts – whether directions were adequate BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275, cited Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, applied MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606, applied R v Ford [2006] QCA 142; CA No 260 of 2004, 5 May 2006, distinguished R v JK [2005] QCA 307; CA No 78 of 2005, 23 August 2005, considered R v LR [2005] QCA 368; [2006] 1 Qd R 435, distinguished R v M [2001] QCA 458; CA No 126 of 2001, 26 October 2001, considered R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82, considered R v Rutherford [2004] QCA 481;CA 295 of 2004, 17 December 2004, considered
COUNSEL:	S J Hamlyn-Harris for the appellant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent