R v L - [2001] QCA 535

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v L [2001] QCA 535

PARTIES:
R
v
L

(appellant)

FILE NO/S:
CA No 170 of 2001
DC No 12 of 2001

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON: 30 November 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 26 October 2001

JUDGES: McPherson JA, Ambrose and Cullinane JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AFTER INQUIRY AND CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CONDUCT OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – where appellant convicted of sexual offences against stepdaughter – where no fresh complaint – where no corroboration – whether Crown Prosecutor’s final address led to a miscarriage of justice – whether Crown Prosecutor exceeded bounds of proper comment and submissions – whether statements by Crown Prosecutor capable of leading jury to entertain bias against the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COURSE OF EVIDENCE, STATEMENTS AND ADDRESSES – ADDRESSES – FINAL ADDRESS OF COUNSEL FOR CROWN – where sexual offences against stepdaughter – whether Crown Prosecutor exceeded bounds of proper comment and submissions – whether statements by Crown Prosecutor capable of leading jury to entertain bias against the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS

– CHARACTER AND PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS – where sexual offences against stepdaughter – where defence counsel and Crown Prosecutor made reference to appearance of complainant – where Crown Prosecutor asked the jury to consider whether the complainant was motivated by a desire to cheapen herself “because of what happened to her” – whether comments appropriate

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – CHARACTER AND PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS – GENERALLY – where appellant gave evidence –where the Crown Prosecutor commented on the appellant’s demeanour – where the Crown Prosecutor referred to the appellant as protesting too much as supporting an inference that his evidence was unreliable – whether comments appropriate

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUMMING UP – where sexual offences against stepdaughter – whether Crown Prosecutor made statements capable of leading jury to entertain bias against the appellant – whether directions of judge strong enough to counter bias

Criminal Code (Qld), s 668 E
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld), s 19

Nathan House (1921) 16 Cr App R 49 considered
R v Buckley [1944] St R Qd 147 considered

R v Day (2000) 115 A Crim R 80 considered
R v Hay & Lindsay [1968] Qd R 459 considered
R v M [1991] 2 Qd R 68 considered

COUNSEL: P Callaghan for the appellant
S Bain for the respondent

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

McPHERSON JA: I have read and in general agree with the reasons of Ambrose J for dismissing the appeal. I am bound to say,…

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 L

Details

AGLC: R v L [2001] QCA 535
Case: [2001] QCA 535
Decision Date: 30 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against his stepdaughter. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the conviction should stand, considering the conduct of legal practitioners during the trial. The key legal issues before the court were whether the Crown Prosecutor’s final address and comments during the trial led to a miscarriage of justice, and whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury were sufficient to counter any potential bias caused by the prosecutor’s comments.

The court found that while some of the comments made by the Crown Prosecutor could be considered inappropriate, they did not reach the level of a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the prosecutor’s remarks were not extreme and the trial judge provided robust directions to the jury, advising them to approach the case objectively. The court concluded that the judge’s directions were sufficient to ensure the jury was not unduly influenced by the prosecutor’s comments. Additionally, the court considered the lack of fresh evidence and the absence of corroboration but found that these factors did not impact the overall fairness of the trial.

Given the analysis, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The conviction was upheld, and the appellant’s appeal against his conviction was rejected.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

CITATION:	R v L [2001] QCA 535
PARTIES:	R v L (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 170 of 2001 DC No 12 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED ON:	30 November 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 October 2001
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Ambrose and Cullinane JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AFTER INQUIRY AND CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CONDUCT OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – where appellant convicted of sexual offences against stepdaughter – where no fresh complaint – where no corroboration – whether Crown Prosecutor’s final address led to a miscarriage of justice – whether Crown Prosecutor exceeded bounds of proper comment and submissions – whether statements by Crown Prosecutor capable of leading jury to entertain bias against the appellant CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COURSE OF EVIDENCE, STATEMENTS AND ADDRESSES – ADDRESSES – FINAL ADDRESS OF COUNSEL FOR CROWN – where sexual offences against stepdaughter – whether Crown Prosecutor exceeded bounds of proper comment and submissions – whether statements by Crown Prosecutor capable of leading jury to entertain bias against the appellant CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – CHARACTER AND PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS – where sexual offences against stepdaughter – where defence counsel and Crown Prosecutor made reference to appearance of complainant – where Crown Prosecutor asked the jury to consider whether the complainant was motivated by a desire to cheapen herself “because of what happened to her” – whether comments appropriate CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – CHARACTER AND PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS – GENERALLY – where appellant gave evidence –where the Crown Prosecutor commented on the appellant’s demeanour – where the Crown Prosecutor referred to the appellant as protesting too much as supporting an inference that his evidence was unreliable – whether comments appropriate CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUMMING UP – where sexual offences against stepdaughter – whether Crown Prosecutor made statements capable of leading jury to entertain bias against the appellant – whether directions of judge strong enough to counter bias Criminal Code (Qld), s 668 E Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld), s 19 Nathan House (1921) 16 Cr App R 49 considered R v Buckley [1944] St R Qd 147 considered R v Day (2000) 115 A Crim R 80 considered R v Hay & Lindsay [1968] Qd R 459 considered R v M [1991] 2 Qd R 68 considered
COUNSEL:	P Callaghan for the appellant S Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent