R v Koller - [2011] QCA 371

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Koller [2011] QCA 371

PARTIES:

R
v
KOLLER, Steffen
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 206 of 2011
DC No 1062 of 2009
DC No 1063 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 November 2011

JUDGES:

Muir, Chesterman and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction allowed.

2. Conviction on Count 1 set aside.

3. New trial ordered on Count 1.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where appellant convicted after trial of one count of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 with circumstance of aggravation that complainant was under 12 years, and acquitted of second count of indecent treatment – where appellant contended that he was denied a fair trial because primary court received inadmissible and prejudicial evidence that warranted the discharge of the jury – whether admission of this evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice

Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60, cited
R v Bain (2007) 23 CRNZ 71; [2007] UKPC 33, cited
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; (2001) 125 A Crim R 186; [2001] NSWCCA 290, cited
R v Park [2008] QCA 383, cited
R v Waring (No 2) [1972] Qd R 263, cited
R v Weaver [1968] 1 QB 353, cited
Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42, cited

COUNSEL:

F Richards for the appellant
S Vasta for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent)

MUIR JA: I agree that the appeal against conviction should be allowed, that the conviction on count 1 should be set aside and that there should be a new trial in respect of that count for the reasons given by White JA.

CHESTERMAN JA: I agree with the orders proposed by White JA for the reasons given by her Honour.

WHITE JA: The appellant was convicted on 28 June 2011 in the District Court at Cairns after a trial of one count of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 with the circumstance of aggravation that she was under 12 years. The appellant was acquitted of a second count of indecent treatment of the same child.

The charges allege that the unlawful conduct occurred between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1980 at Kuranda. The complainant became six years of age during that year. The complainant first went to police in 2008. She was aged 37 when she gave her evidence at the trial.

The appellant was not sentenced after the verdicts were returned and was…

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 Koller

Details

AGLC: R v Koller [2011] QCA 371
Case: [2011] QCA 371
Decision Date: 16 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Koller involved an appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. The appellant had been found guilty of one count of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16, with the aggravating circumstance that the complainant was under 12 years of age, and acquitted on a second count of indecent treatment. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the admission of certain evidence by the trial court constituted a miscarriage of justice, thereby denying the appellant a fair trial. Specifically, the appellant contended that the trial court had improperly admitted evidence that was both inadmissible and prejudicial, warranting the discharge of the jury.

The court was required to determine whether the admission of the contested evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice. This involved assessing whether the evidence in question was indeed inadmissible and prejudicial, and if so, whether its admission had such a significant impact on the trial's outcome that it deprived the appellant of a fair trial. The court examined the nature and content of the evidence, the trial judge's rulings on its admissibility, and the overall fairness of the trial process in light of this evidence.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the contested evidence was indeed both inadmissible and prejudicial, and that its admission had a substantial impact on the trial. The court found that the admission of this evidence constituted a significant procedural error that undermined the fairness of the trial process. Consequently, the court determined that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The appeal against the conviction was allowed, the conviction on Count 1 was set aside, and a new trial was ordered on that count.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction allowed.

2. Conviction on Count 1 set aside.

3. New trial ordered on Count 1.

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 Koller [2011] QCA 371
PARTIES:	R v KOLLER, Steffen (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 206 of 2011 DC No 1062 of 2009 DC No 1063 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	16 December 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 November 2011
JUDGES:	Muir, Chesterman and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction allowed. 2. Conviction on Count 1 set aside. 3. New trial ordered on Count 1.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where appellant convicted after trial of one count of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 with circumstance of aggravation that complainant was under 12 years, and acquitted of second count of indecent treatment – where appellant contended that he was denied a fair trial because primary court received inadmissible and prejudicial evidence that warranted the discharge of the jury – whether admission of this evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60, cited R v Bain (2007) 23 CRNZ 71; [2007] UKPC 33, cited R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; (2001) 125 A Crim R 186; [2001] NSWCCA 290, cited R v Park [2008] QCA 383, cited R v Waring (No 2) [1972] Qd R 263, cited R v Weaver [1968] 1 QB 353, cited Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42, cited
COUNSEL:	F Richards for the appellant S Vasta for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent)