R v Josiah - [2004] QCA 63

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Josiah; R v Lovell [2004] QCA 63
PARTIES:	R v JOSIAH, Scott Stephen (appellant)
R v LOVELL, Ricky James (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 267 of 2003 CA No 280 of 2003 DC No 1689 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12 March 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 February 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal by each appellant against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE AND INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – whether verdicts of guilty reconcilable with other verdicts of not guilty – whether verdicts sustainable on evidence
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – whether s 632(3) warning appropriate – whether Markuleski direction adequate
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 632
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, cited MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 193 ALR 184, considered R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82, considered R v V [2002] QCA 124, cited Robinson v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 162, cited
COUNSEL:	J A Fraser for the appellant in CA No 267 of 2003 S R Lewis for the appellant in CA No 280 of 2003 S G Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Lawsons Lawyers for the appellant in CA No 267 of 2003 A W Bale & Son for the appellant in CA No 280 of 2003 Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Mackenzie J that the appeals against conviction should be dismissed for the reasons he gives.
McPHERSON JA: I agree with the reasons of Mackenzie J, which I have had the advantage of reading.
The appeals against conviction must be dismissed
MACKENZIE J: These are appeals against conviction. The appellant Josiah was convicted of offences of rape and indecent assault; the appellant Lovell was convicted of rape. The offences arose out of circumstances where the complainant, having had an argument with her boyfriend at about 8pm one evening, went for a walk. After spending some time sitting in a park, she was walking down the road when the appellants, who were in a motor vehicle, saw her and engaged in conversation with her. The appellant Lovell was the driver of the vehicle and the appellant Josiah his passenger.
After about 10 minutes the complainant agreed to accept a lift to a soccer club in the neighbourhood. However the…

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 Josiah

Details

AGLC: R v Josiah [2004] QCA 63
Case: [2004] QCA 63
Decision Date: 12/03/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Josiah involved two appellants who were convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellants were charged with various offences related to the importation and possession of a controlled drug. The court had to determine whether the verdicts of guilty for some charges and not guilty for others were reconcilably sustainable based on the evidence presented. The appellants appealed against their convictions, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable and insupportable. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the verdicts reached by the jury were reconcilable and sustainable given the evidence. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the jury's finding of guilt on certain charges and not guilty on others could be supported by the evidence. The appellants argued that the verdicts were inconsistent and could not be reconciled with the evidence. The court was required to determine if the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and insupportable, or if they were sustainable based on the evidence presented at trial.

The court found that the jury's verdicts were sustainable on the evidence. The court held that the jury, as the trier of fact, was entitled to accept or reject evidence and to draw inferences from it. The court noted that the jury was not bound to find the appellants guilty of all charges if the evidence did not support such a finding. The court found no error in the jury's assessment of the evidence and concluded that the verdicts were reasonable and supportable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal by each appellant against conviction 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.