R v Knight - [2017] QCA 98

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Knight [2017] QCA 98

PARTIES:

R
v
KNIGHT, Nathan Geoffrey
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 176 of 2016
DC No 1150 of 2016
DC No 2125 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 8 June 2016

DELIVERED ON:

23 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 March 2017

JUDGES:

Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   The convictions on all counts of which the appellant was convicted on 8 June 2016 are set aside.

3.   The appellant is to be retried on all such counts.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of five counts of indecently dealing with a child under 16 years of age – where, in the closing address at trial, the prosecutor remarked to the jury that there was no apparent motive for the complainant to make false allegations against the appellant – where the trial judge directed the jury that it was for the prosecution to prove that the complainant was telling the truth and that any failure or inability on the part of the appellant to prove a motive to lie did not mean the complainant was telling the truth – where the trial judge did not otherwise direct the jury that a motive may still exist, that the defendant may not know of it, and that there may be many reasons why a person makes a false complaint – where no further or other direction was sought by defence counsel at trial – whether the direction cured the prejudice to the appellant arising from the prosecutor’s remarks – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2, applied
R v Coss[2016] QCA 44, followed
R v Geary [2003] 1 Qd R 64; [2002] QCA 33, distinguished
R v Kostaras (2002) 133 A Crim R 399; [2002] SASC 326, cited
R v Muniz[2016] QCA 210, distinguished
R v Van Der Zyden [2012] 2 Qd R 568; [2012] QCA 89, followed

COUNSEL:

B J Power for the appellant
J A Wooldridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: The appellant, Nathan Geoffrey Knight, was tried in the District Court at Brisbane on five counts of indecently dealing with a female child under 16 years of age. On 8 June 2016, and at the conclusion of the three day trial, the appellant was found guilty on all five counts.
The counts each alleged that the appellant offended against s 210(1)(a) of the Criminal…

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 Knight

Details

AGLC: R v Knight [2017] QCA 98
Case: [2017] QCA 98
Decision Date: 23 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Knight involved the appellant, who had been convicted by a jury on five counts of indecently dealing with a child under 16 years of age. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's direction to the jury, following comments made by the prosecutor, was insufficient to mitigate the prejudicial effect of those remarks. The appellant contended that the trial judge's direction did not adequately address the possibility that the complainant might have made false allegations for reasons other than a motive known to the appellant. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's direction was adequate to cure the potential prejudice caused by the prosecutor's remarks and whether the appellant's conviction was the result of a miscarriage of justice.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient to address the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor's remarks that there was no apparent motive for the complainant to make false allegations. The court had to consider whether the trial judge's direction adequately conveyed to the jury that the absence of a known motive did not necessarily mean the complainant was telling the truth and that there might be other reasons for a false complaint. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's direction, in conjunction with the prosecutor's remarks, amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court held that the trial judge's direction did not sufficiently address the potential prejudice caused by the prosecutor's remarks. The court found that the direction did not properly inform the jury that a motive might exist without the appellant's knowledge, and that there could be many reasons for a person to make a false complaint. The court concluded that the trial judge's direction, when considered in the context of the prosecutor's remarks, failed to mitigate the prejudicial effect of those remarks. Consequently, the court found that the appellant's convictions were the result of a miscarriage of justice. The court set aside the convictions and ordered a retrial on all counts.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the convictions set aside, and the appellant be retried on all counts. This decision underscores the importance of clear and comprehensive jury directions in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual offences against children, to ensure that the jury is properly guided in its deliberations and that justice is fairly administered.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The convictions on all counts of which the appellant was convicted on 8 June 2016 are set aside.

3. The appellant is to be retried on all such counts.

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 Knight [2017] QCA 98
PARTIES:	R v KNIGHT, Nathan Geoffrey (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 176 of 2016 DC No 1150 of 2016 DC No 2125 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 8 June 2016
DELIVERED ON:	23 May 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 March 2017
JUDGES:	Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The convictions on all counts of which the appellant was convicted on 8 June 2016 are set aside. 3. The appellant is to be retried on all such counts.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of five counts of indecently dealing with a child under 16 years of age – where, in the closing address at trial, the prosecutor remarked to the jury that there was no apparent motive for the complainant to make false allegations against the appellant – where the trial judge directed the jury that it was for the prosecution to prove that the complainant was telling the truth and that any failure or inability on the part of the appellant to prove a motive to lie did not mean the complainant was telling the truth – where the trial judge did not otherwise direct the jury that a motive may still exist, that the defendant may not know of it, and that there may be many reasons why a person makes a false complaint – where no further or other direction was sought by defence counsel at trial – whether the direction cured the prejudice to the appellant arising from the prosecutor’s remarks – whether there was a miscarriage of justice Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2, applied R v Coss[2016] QCA 44, followed R v Geary [2003] 1 Qd R 64; [2002] QCA 33, distinguished R v Kostaras (2002) 133 A Crim R 399; [2002] SASC 326, cited R v Muniz[2016] QCA 210, distinguished R v Van Der Zyden [2012] 2 Qd R 568; [2012] QCA 89, followed
COUNSEL:	B J Power for the appellant J A Wooldridge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent