R v Laf - [2015] QCA 130

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LAF [2015] QCA 130

PARTIES:

R
v
LAF
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 308 of 2014
DC No 475 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Unreported, 30 October 2014

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 April 2015

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes JA and Applegarth J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret McMurdo P and Applegarth J concurring as to the order made, Holmes JA dissenting

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and found not guilty of other specific offences in respect of the same complainant – where the evidence included admissions made in a pretext phone call with the complainant – whether the guilty verdict on the count of maintaining was inconsistent with the other verdicts

Criminal Code (Qld), s 229B
Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2003 (Qld), s 11

Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75, cited
R v CX[2006] QCA 409, cited
R v DAL[2005] QCA 281, cited
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, cited

COUNSEL:

C W Heaton QC for the appellant
J A Wooldridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Wettenhall Silva Solicitors for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Applegarth J’s reasons for dismissing this appeal against conviction.
This is an unusual case in that the jury acquitted the appellant of many charged counts of specified sexual offending relied on by the prosecution as particulars of the charged offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, yet found him guilty of the maintaining offence without convicting on any other charged offence.
The trial judge appropriately directed the jury in terms of s 229B Criminal Code which provides:
“Maintaining a sexual relationship with a child
(1)Any adult who maintains an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the prescribed age commits a crime.
…
(2)An unlawful sexual relationship is a relationship that involves more than 1 unlawful sexual act over any period.
(3)For an adult to be convicted of the offence of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, all the members of the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence establishes that an unlawful sexual relationship with the child involving unlawful sexual acts existed.
(4)However, in relation to the unlawful sexual acts involved in an unlawful sexual relationship –
(a)the prosecution is not required to allege the particulars of any unlawful sexual…

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 Laf

Details

AGLC: R v Laf [2015] QCA 130
Case: [2015] QCA 130
Decision Date: 17 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Western Australia of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and was acquitted on other specific offences against the same complainant. The appellant sought to appeal against the conviction on the basis that it was inconsistent with the other verdicts. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the guilty verdict on the count of maintaining was inconsistent with the other verdicts and whether the conviction should be quashed as a result. The Court of Appeal found that the verdicts were not inconsistent and that the guilty verdict was supported by the evidence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against conviction is 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 LAF [2015] QCA 130
PARTIES:	R v LAF (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 308 of 2014 DC No 475 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns – Unreported, 30 October 2014
DELIVERED ON:	17 July 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 April 2015
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes JA and Applegarth J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret McMurdo P and Applegarth J concurring as to the order made, Holmes JA dissenting
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and found not guilty of other specific offences in respect of the same complainant – where the evidence included admissions made in a pretext phone call with the complainant – whether the guilty verdict on the count of maintaining was inconsistent with the other verdicts Criminal Code (Qld), s 229B Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2003 (Qld), s 11 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60, cited MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75, cited R v CX[2006] QCA 409, cited R v DAL[2005] QCA 281, cited R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, cited
COUNSEL:	C W Heaton QC for the appellant J A Wooldridge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Wettenhall Silva Solicitors for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent