R v K; ex parte

Case [2002] QCA 260

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v K; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 260

PARTIES:

R
v
K
(appellant)
R
V
K
(respondent)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 24 of 2002
CA No 67 of 2002
DC No 18 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against conviction
Appeal against sentence by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Warwick

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Mackenzie and Atkinson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

Appeal allowed. Convictions and verdicts set aside. New trial of appellant ordered on counts 2 to 12 in the indictment. Application for leave to appeal against sentence and Attorney-General’s appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - SIMILAR FACTS - TO REBUT DEFENCES - older child injured in similar way as victim - whether evidence admissible to rebut accident defence where there was good reason to suppose defence would be raised

EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - SIMILAR FACTS - IN GENERAL - RELEVANT PRINCIPLES - two babies were injured in a similar way - improbability injuries were caused by someone other than accused objectively high - whether evidence of mother’s plea of guilty for causing older child’s injuries admissible to show no innocent explanation of accused’s involvement in this victim’s injuries

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS - MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS - JOINT TRIAL - two accused tried together where one has confessed to the crime but pleaded not guilty - whether the confession is admissible, although hearsay, “for what it is worth” when the crown did not intend to suggest he was guilty

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PLEAS - SPECIAL PLEAS - PLEA OF  ISSUE ESTOPPEL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - accused pleaded guilty to a similar crime received light sentence based on claiming accident - whether crown is bound by its behaviour at earlier sentencing hearing

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - PREJUDICIAL - PARTICULAR CASES - judge allowed evidence of opinion of investigating police officer about  behaviour during interview of joint accused - whether possible prejudice justifies discharging the jury

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JURIES - OTHER MATTERS - jury communicated problem reaching verdict to bailiff - judge gave direction to bailiff to give to jury - whether communication from jury should have been considered request for redirection in open court - whether delegation of duty contravenes s 617 and s 620 of the Criminal Code (Qld) - whether violation produces mistrial

Criminal Code (Qld) s 23(1)(b), s 568(10), s 569, s 569(10), s 572, s 617, s 620, s 621, s 668E, s 671A
Jury Act 1995 (Qld) s 54, s 54(1), s 54(2)(a), s 54(3), s 54(4)

Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44, applied
Carroll (2000) 115 A Crim R…

Continue reading R v K; ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v K; ex parte [2002] QCA 260
Case
[2002] QCA 260
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal against convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant by the District Court. The appellant was convicted on several counts related to the death of a child. The primary legal issues centred on the admissibility of evidence concerning similar incidents, the impact of a plea of guilty by the mother of the child, the admissibility of a confession by a co-accused, and procedural matters related to jury communication and directions. The court was tasked with determining whether evidence of a similar incident was admissible to rebut a defence of accident, the relevance of a plea of guilty by the mother in relation to the child's injuries, the admissibility of a confession by a co-accused who pleaded not guilty, and the appropriateness of the judge’s handling of a communication from the jury.

The court examined the principles governing the admissibility of similar fact evidence to rebut defences. It concluded that the evidence of the mother’s plea of guilty in a similar incident was not admissible to prove the accused's involvement in the death of the child. The court found that the probative value of the evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect. Regarding the co-accused's confession, the court ruled that while the confession was inadmissible to prove guilt, it could be considered for what it was worth. The court also addressed procedural issues, determining that the judge’s handling of the jury’s communication did not contravene statutory provisions and did not necessitate a mistrial. The court found that the trial was conducted with procedural fairness and the evidence was properly managed.

The appeal was allowed, and the convictions and verdicts were set aside. A new trial was ordered on certain counts. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence and the Attorney-General’s appeal against the sentence were both dismissed. The decision highlights the court's careful consideration of evidentiary rules, the impact of prior pleas, and the procedural integrity of criminal trials.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed. Convictions and verdicts set aside. New trial of appellant ordered on counts 2 to 12 in the indictment. Application for leave to appeal against sentence and Attorney-General’s appeal against sentence 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.