SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Kahu [2006] QCA 33
PARTIES:
R
v
KAHU, Hoane Joseph
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 290 of 2005
DC No 226 of 2005DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Gladstone
DELIVERED ON:
17 February 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 February 2006
JUDGES:
McPherson and Keane JJA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - where appellant convicted by jury of one count of rape for fellatio but jury unable to reach verdict on two other counts of rape - where appellant initially denied ever meeting complainant - where appellant later claimed that fellatio was consensual - whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to all of the evidence
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY - PARTIALITY - where appellant convicted by jury of one count of rape but jury unable to reach verdict on two other counts of rape - where juror disobeyed instructions of learned trial judge by sending a text message to a person not on jury - where text message alleged to indicate racial bias - where juror said he had not conveyed any racist views to other jurors - whether learned trial judge erred in dismissing an application to discharge the jury for reasons of bias
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1)
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606, applied
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316, cited
R v Czajkowski [2002] NSWCCA 530; (2002) 137 A Crim R 111, considered
R v DAL [2005] QCA 281; CA No 74 of 2005, 12 August 2005, citedCOUNSEL:
The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondentSOLICITORS:
The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
McPHERSON JA: I have read and agree with the reasons of Keane JA that the appeal against conviction in this matter should be dismissed.
KEANE JA: On 24 October 2005, the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of rape. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on two other counts of rape. The appellant seeks to appeal against the conviction on the following grounds:
"(a) That the conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to all of the evidence;
(b) That the learned trial judge erred in dismissing the application to have the jury discharged because of concerns of juror bias."
I shall discuss these grounds of appeal in turn, but before doing so I should summarise the evidence.
The case at trial
The complainant was born in 1989.…
Continue reading R v Kahu
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Kahu [2006] QCA 33
- Case
- [2006] QCA 33
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the conviction was unreasonable or insupportable, and whether there were irregularities in relation to the jury, such as partiality. The court noted that the jury's verdict on the count of rape for fellatio was unanimous, and that the evidence supported the conviction. The court also found that the juror's text message did not indicate racial bias, and that the trial judge did not err in dismissing the application to discharge the jury.
The court held that the conviction was not unreasonable or insupportable, and that there were no irregularities in relation to the jury. The court noted that the jury's verdict on the count of rape for fellatio was unanimous, and that the evidence supported the conviction. The court also found that the juror's text message did not indicate racial bias, and that the trial judge did not err in dismissing the application to discharge the jury. Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal 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.