R v LAC - [2013] QCA 101

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LAC [2013] QCA 101

PARTIES:

R
v
LAC
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 184 of 2012
DC No 252 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

10 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 March 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was charged with maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1), six counts of rape (counts 2, 4, 6, 8 , 10 and 12) and six counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13) – where the appellant was convicted of counts 1, 7, 11, 13 and, as alternative charges to rape, counts 6, 10 and 12 as indecent treatment of child under 16 – where the only evidence to support the charges came from the complainant – where the appellant contended that the jury's not guilty verdicts on counts 2 to 5, 8 and 9, and the not guilty verdicts on the rape aspects of counts 6, 10 and 12 meant that the jury should also have had a doubt about the appellant's guilt on the counts for which he was convicted – whether verdicts logically explicable – whether verdicts inconsistent

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICTS UNREASONABLE OR CANNOT BE SUPPORTED HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where there were inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and the accounts given by the complainant to the preliminary complaint witnesses – where the complainant did not give any account about counts 10 and 11 in her second police interview until prompted by police – where the appellant contended that the number of people in the house at the time counts 10 and 11 allegedly occurred made it unlikely that the appellant would have committed the offences – whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the trial judge directed the jury consistent with No. 34.2 of the Bench Book, that if they had a reasonable doubt as to some of the complainant's evidence, that they must consider whether that causes them to have a reasonable doubt about her evidence relevant to other counts – where the appellant's trial counsel did not seek a re-direction – where the appellant contends that the trial judge did not adequately warn the jury that an assessment of doubt as to the appellant's evidence on some counts may adversely affect their consideration of her evidence on other counts – where the direction sought was not mandatory…

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 LAC

Details

AGLC: R v LAC [2013] QCA 101
Case: [2013] QCA 101
Decision Date: 10 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant on various charges, including maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and multiple counts of rape and indecent treatment of a child under 16. The appellant was convicted of certain counts but acquitted on others, leading to questions about the consistency and reasonableness of the jury's verdicts. The central issues before the court were whether the verdicts were logically explicable and whether they were inconsistent, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence. Additionally, the appellant argued that there had been a misdirection or non-direction by the trial judge, which could amount to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the evidence and the discrepancies between the complainant's testimony and other accounts, as well as the appellant's argument about the improbability of the alleged offences occurring given the circumstances. The court found that the verdicts, while seemingly inconsistent, were explicable and reasonable in light of the evidence. The inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony were noted, but the court held that these did not render the verdicts unreasonable or unsupported. Regarding the trial judge's direction to the jury, the court found that the direction was appropriate and that no further direction was necessary, as the sought direction was not mandatory and the trial counsel had not sought a re-direction.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the verdicts were explicable and supported by the evidence, and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the trial judge's direction to the jury. The court's decision upheld the appellant's convictions on the specified counts.

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.

CITATION:	R v LAC [2013] QCA 101
PARTIES:	R v LAC (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 184 of 2012 DC No 252 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	10 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 March 2013
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was charged with maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1), six counts of rape (counts 2, 4, 6, 8 , 10 and 12) and six counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13) – where the appellant was convicted of counts 1, 7, 11, 13 and, as alternative charges to rape, counts 6, 10 and 12 as indecent treatment of child under 16 – where the only evidence to support the charges came from the complainant – where the appellant contended that the jury's not guilty verdicts on counts 2 to 5, 8 and 9, and the not guilty verdicts on the rape aspects of counts 6, 10 and 12 meant that the jury should also have had a doubt about the appellant's guilt on the counts for which he was convicted – whether verdicts logically explicable – whether verdicts inconsistent CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICTS UNREASONABLE OR CANNOT BE SUPPORTED HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where there were inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and the accounts given by the complainant to the preliminary complaint witnesses – where the complainant did not give any account about counts 10 and 11 in her second police interview until prompted by police – where the appellant contended that the number of people in the house at the time counts 10 and 11 allegedly occurred made it unlikely that the appellant would have committed the offences – whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the trial judge directed the jury consistent with No. 34.2 of the Bench Book, that if they had a reasonable doubt as to some of the complainant's evidence, that they must consider whether that causes them to have a reasonable doubt about her evidence relevant to other counts – where the appellant's trial counsel did not seek a re-direction – where the appellant contends that the trial judge did not adequately warn the jury that an assessment of doubt as to the appellant's evidence on some counts may adversely affect their consideration of her evidence on other counts – where the direction sought was not mandatory…