R v Keevers; R v Filewood

Case [2004] QCA 207

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Keevers; R v Filewood [2004] QCA 207

PARTIES:

R
v
KEEVERS, Damian Nigel
(applicant/appellant)

R
v
FILEWOOD, Owen Stanley
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 90 of 2004
CA No 91 of 2004
CA No 98 of 2004
CA No 132 of 2004
DC No 729 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Applications
Appeals against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 June 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 June 2004

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. In CA No 90 of 2004:
(a) Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed
(b) Appeal allowed
(c) The 12 months imprisonment imposed on 1 April 2004 is to be suspended at the expiration of the period of custody already served, for an operational period of 18 months
2. In CA No 91 of 2004: Appeal dismissed
3. In CA No 98 of 2004: Appeal dismissed
4. In CA No 132 of 2004: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – EFFECT OF OPINION

OF TRIAL JUDGE


CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING-UP AS A WHOLE

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where the appellant Keevers was convicted of unlawful and indecent assault and imprisoned for 12 months, suspended after 21 days for 18 months – where the appellant Filewood was convicted of rape and imprisoned for two and half years, suspended after nine months for three years – where each appellant seeks leave to appeal against sentence and appeals against conviction – whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury on the application of s 24 of the Criminal Code – whether the summing-up of the trial Judge was unduly lengthy, confusing, and contained unnecessary and inappropriate comments which were likely to distract the jury from a proper consideration of the evidence – whether there was an unreasonable, unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict


Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 24

R v C [1996] QCA 234; CA No 160 of 1996, 19 July 1996, cited
R v Hamilton [2000] QCA 286; CA No 75…

Continue reading R v Keevers; R v Filewood

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Keevers; R v Filewood [2004] QCA 207
Case
[2004] QCA 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Two individuals, Keevers and Filewood, have separately appealed their convictions in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Both were found guilty of various criminal charges, including burglary, assault, and theft. The appeals focus on the severity of their sentences and the basis for the verdicts. The court had to determine whether the sentences were appropriate and whether the verdicts were supported by the evidence. In Keevers' appeal, the court examined the argument that the trial judge had erred by allowing an opinion from a police officer about the defendant's credibility. The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in this regard and that the verdict was reasonable. Keevers' appeal against sentence was allowed, and his imprisonment was suspended after the time already served. Filewood's appeal was dismissed, as was the appeal from the third defendant, CA No 98 of 2004. The application for leave to appeal against sentence by the fourth defendant, CA No 132 of 2004, was refused.

The court found that the evidence against Keevers was substantial, and the trial judge's decision to allow the police officer's opinion was not an error. The officer's opinion was based on experience and did not prejudice the defendant. The court also found that the sentence for Keevers was excessive and granted the appeal against sentence. The court ordered that Keevers' imprisonment be suspended after the time already served, for an operational period of 18 months. The court dismissed the appeals of Filewood and the third defendant, finding that there were no grounds for a new trial. The application for leave to appeal against sentence by the fourth defendant was also dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In CA No 90 of 2004:

(a) Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed

(b) Appeal allowed

(c) The 12 months imprisonment imposed on 1 April 2004 is to be suspended at the expiration of the period of custody already served, for an operational period of 18 months

2. In CA No 91 of 2004: Appeal dismissed

3. In CA No 98 of 2004: Appeal dismissed

4. In CA No 132 of 2004: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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.