Legal Research
Cases
R v Lawrence

R v Lawrence

Case [2001] QCA 441 19 October 2001

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441

PARTIES: R
v
LAWRENCE, Mark Richard
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 104 of 2001
DC No 3421 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 19 October 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 10 September 2001

JUDGES: McPherson and Thomas JJA, White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER: Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside and a new trial ordered of the counts in the indictment.

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE – whether Trial Judge should have allowed the admission of evidence to establish that the complainant had previously threatened to wrongly accuse a fellow inmate of propositioning him for sex

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – whether evidence of earlier threats admissible as evidence of a propensity or disposition on the part of the complainant to make false complaints of a sexual nature

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – GENERALLY

Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1), s 668E(1A)
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 101

Attorney-General v Hitchcock (1847) 1 Ex 91; 154 ER 38, considered
Chandu Nagrecha [1997] 2 Cr App R 401,
Knight v Jones; ex p Jones [1981] Qd R 98, applied
Natta v Canham (1991) 32 FCR 282, considered
Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1, considered

Piddington v Bennett and Wood Pty Ltd (1940) 63 CLR 533, considered

R v Busby (1982) 75 Cr App R 79, considered

R v Funderburk [1990] 1 WLR 587, considered

R v Kochnieff (1987) 33 A Crim R 1, considered
R v Lowrie & Ross [2000] QCA 405; CA Nos 95 and 92 of 2000, 3 October 2000, considered
R v LSS [1998] QCA 303, CA No 128 of 1998, 2 October 1998, considered
R v Phillips (1936) 26 Cr App R 17, considered
Smith v The Queen (1993) 9 WAR 99, distinguished
Urban Transport Authority of NSW v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471, considered

COUNSEL: A J Rafter for the appellant
N Weston for the respondent

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

McPHERSON JA: In 1999 the appellant and the complainant were prisoners in the Moreton Bay Correctional Centre, where the complainant was being held on remand. According to his evidence, on 14 October 1999, the appellant came into the prison dormitory where he was sleeping and had anal intercourse with him without his consent. At the trial in the District Court in 2001, the appellant was found guilty of one count…

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 Lawrence

Details

AGLC: R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441
Case: [2001] QCA 441
Decision Date: 19 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lawrence, the defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual assault. The dispute centred on the trial judge's decision to admit certain evidence regarding previous threats made by the complainant to falsely accuse another individual of sexual misconduct. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in allowing the admission of evidence that demonstrated the complainant's propensity to make false accusations of a sexual nature.

The court examined the principles governing the admissibility of evidence of a complainant's previous false accusations. It was noted that such evidence could be relevant in assessing the credibility of the complainant and the likelihood of the truthfulness of the current allegations. However, the court emphasised that the decision to admit such evidence rested within the sound discretion of the trial judge. The court held that the trial judge had not sufficiently considered the prejudicial effect of the evidence against its probative value, resulting in an error of law. Consequently, the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence was deemed to have been an abuse of discretion.

Given the error in the admission of the evidence, the court concluded that the appellant's conviction was unsafe and unreliable. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered for the counts in the indictment. The court's decision underscored the importance of careful consideration of the probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence when exercising judicial discretion in criminal trials.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside and a new trial ordered of the counts in the indictment.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441

Most Recent Citation

R v Lawrence [2002] QCA 526

Cases citing this decision · 17 of 17 shown

Rhu v The State of Western Australia [No 2]
[2023] WASCA 49 Para 3

…xception is not so confined. An offer to testify corruptly has been described as a clear example of the corruption exception.[115] [115] R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441; [2002] 2 Qd R 400 [27] (McPherson JA).…
R v SDY
[2023] QCA 28 Para 25

…was followed by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Urban Transport Authority of New South Wales v Nweiser .[16] [10][2002] 2 Qd R 400; [2001] QCA 441. [11](1998) 193 CLR 1 at 23; [1998] HCA 2. [12](1991) 32 FCR 282 at 298; [1991] FCA 470 at [38]. [13][2002] 2 Qd R 400 at 406; [2001] QCA 441 at [14]. [14](200…
R v SDE
[2018] QCA 286

…nson & Honeysett [2013] QCA 91 , cited R v Lapuse [1964] VR 43; [1964] VicRp 7, distinguished R v Lawrence [2002] 2 Qd R 400; [2001] QCA 441 , cited R v Lavery (2013) 116 SASR 242; [2013] SASCFC 46, cited R v McBride [2008] QCA 412 , followed RMD v Western Australia [2017] WASCA 70, cited Salmon v The Queen [2001…
R v CBU
[2017] QCA 227 Para 27

…television footage reviewed by the police officers which established that [J’s] complaint was a false one”.[13] [12](2001) 124 A Crim R 83; [2001] QCA 441, at [14]. [13]Appellant’s Outline, paragraph 26.…
R v Mm
[2016] NTSC 40

…84 (NT) s 4 (1)-(4) AM v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 18, (2006) 18 NTLR 110; R v Burton [2013] NSWCCA 335, (2013) 237 A Crim R 238; R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441, [2002] 2 Qd R 400, applied. Bull v The Queen [2000] HCA 24, (2000) 201 CLR 443; R v Fernando [2009] ACTSC 137, (2009) 238 FLR 64; R v MAG [2004] QCA 397, refe…
Attorney-General v Lawrence
[2016] QSC 58 Para 11

…by saying “Don’t say anything. I’ll be watching you. And, remember, I’m a psychopathic murderer.”[15] [13] R v Lawrence [2002] 2 Qd R 400; [2001] QCA 441. [14] [2002] QCA 526. [15] [2002] QCA 526 at [3].…
R v Smith
[2013] QDC 288 Para 1

…The Crown sought to distinguish cases such as Ellem (supra) and R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441 as cases where there was no eyewitness where such evidence became more than ordinarily relevant. In the instant case there are seven eyewitnesses to be called. It was submitted the evidence was very remote.…
R v J, SM
[2013] SASCFC 96 Para 6

…iggins JJ; Urban Transport Authority of NSW v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471 at 477-478 per Clarke JA (Mahoney and Meagher JJA agreeing); R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441; (2001) 124 A Crim R 83 at [10]-[14] per McPherson JA and [44]-[45] and [54] per White J; R v FTG [2007] VSCA 109; (2007) 15 VR 685 at [73]-[76] per Vi…
R v Haf
[2013] QDC 170 Para 1

…levant factor is that the earlier complaint was made two years before the current complaint when the child was only 10 years old.[3] [3] R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441.…
R v MCB
[2012] QDC 88

…nant about the matter of consent is critical. In this context, I'll refer to the judgments of their Honours Justice Thomas and White in R v. Lawrence [2001] QCA 441, particularly Justice Thomas at paragraph 31 and Justice White at paragraph 48.…
R v Robinson
[2010] QCA 377

…cited R v Kiripatea [1991] 2 Qd R 686, cited R v Lawrence [2002] 2 Qd R 400; [2001] QCA 441, cited R v Nabhan; R v Kostopoulos [2007] QCA 266, cited R v Robinson [2007] QCA 99, cited COUNSEL: P E Smith for the appellant M J Copley SC for the respondent SOLICITORS: Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant Director o…
R v PAK
[2010] QCA 187

…19 CLR 196; [2005] HCA 1, cited R v AAF [2008] QCA 235, cited R v Lawrence [2002] 2 Qd R 400; [2001] QCA 441, cited R v Ryan [1995] QCA 555, cited The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 13, cited Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81, cited COUNSEL: The appellant appeared on his own beha…
R v. Cabo
[2007] QDC 265

…ant is a central issue in the trial. Counsel for the applicant referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal of Queensland of Mark Richard Lawrence [2001] QCA 441, per White J. He submitted that:…
R v MAG
[2004] QCA 397 Para 1

…Counsel for the complainant relied heavily on a passage in the judgment of Thomas JA in R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441. There it was said:…
Millar v the Queen
[2003] WASCA 211

…R 154 MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348 Markuleski (2001) 125 A Crim R 186 Narkle v The Queen (2001) 23 WAR 468; [2001] WASCA 31 R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441 R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 Sutherland (1994) 76 A Crim R 447…
Hill v The Queen
[2003] WASCA 177 Para 16

…where the witness in question provides the only evidence upon that issue, as in sexual assault cases: Natta v Canham (1991) 32 FCR 282; R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441; Hoy & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275 at par 116‑124. Courts in England have been prepared to relax the finality rule in such cases: R v Funderburk…
R v Lawrence
[2002] QCA 526

…and the appellant remained in custody on remand pending trial. This was a retrial. His first conviction being set aside on appeal (see R v. Lawrence [2001] QCA 441, CA No 104 of 2001, 10 September 2001).…

View all 17 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

R v Tribe
[2001] QCA 206

…our’s remarks on this subject as correctly reflecting the state of the law as it now is in Australia. To that extent, the observations in R v Tribe [2001] QCA 206 ¶32, may need to be read in the light of what was said by McHugh J in Palmer .…
R v Lowrie & Ross
[2000] QCA 405

…considered R v Funderburk [1990] 1 WLR 587, considered R v Kochnieff (1987) 33 A Crim R 1, considered R v Lowrie & Ross [2000] QCA 405; CA Nos 95 and 92 of 2000, 3 October 2000, considered R v LSS [1998] QCA 303, CA No 128 of 1998, 2 October 1998, considered R v Phillips (1936) 26 Cr App R 17, considered Smith v…
R v LSS
[1998] QCA 303

…3 A Crim R 1, considered R v Lowrie & Ross [2000] QCA 405; CA Nos 95 and 92 of 2000, 3 October 2000, considered R v LSS [1998] QCA 303, CA No 128 of 1998, 2 October 1998, considered R v Phillips (1936) 26 Cr App R 17, considered Smith v The Queen (1993) 9 WAR 99, distinguished Urban Transport Authority of NSW v N…
Palmer v the Queen
[1998] HCA 2 Para 1

…The matter has recently been the subject of extensive consideration and analysis by McHugh J in Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1, 22-25, in the course of which his Honour (at 23) said, citing Natta v Canham (1991) 32 FCR 282, 298, that evidentiary rules based on the distinction between issues of credit and facts in issue…
Natta v Canham
[1991] FCA 712 Para 1

…al and may not be contradicted by affirmative evidence from the other side. As can be seen from the decision of the Federal Court in Natta v Canham (1991) 32 FCR 282, 297, the rule is one of considerable antiquity. It originally evolved at least partly in the interests of the witness being cross-examined in order to…
Wakeley v The Queen
[1990] HCA 23 Para 1

…Harmer v R (1985) 28 A Crim R 35. [17] Knight v Jones; ex parte Jones [18][1974] AC 85, 102. [19] Cross on Evidence at para [19065]. [20](1990) 64 ALJR 321, 324, 325.…
Piddington v Bennett and Wood Pty Ltd
[1940] HCA 2 Para 1

…has properly been characterised, at least since its modern enunciation in Hitchcock , as a rule of convenience, Piddington v Bennett and Wood Pty Ltd (1940) 63 CLR 533 per Starke J at 551, but has tended, nonetheless, subject to the exceptions, to be strictly applied. More recently, it has been observed that its rig…
[1974] AC 85
[1974] AC 85 Para 1

…of particular witnesses. [16] Knight v Jones; ex parte Jones ; Harmer v R (1985) 28 A Crim R 35. [17] Knight v Jones; ex parte Jones [18][1974] AC 85, 102. [19] Cross on Evidence at para [19065]. [20](1990) 64 ALJR 321, 324, 325.…
154 ER 38
154 ER 38 Para 1

…ainst the accused. Understood in that sense, the ruling in Yewin was, in the leading case of Attorney‑General v Hitchcock (1847) 1 Ex 91; 154 ER 38, later treated as forming a special exception to the finality rule. Pollock CB (1 Ex 91, at 100), spoke of “those matters which affect the motives, temper, and c…
[1990] 1 WLR 587
[1990] 1 WLR 587 Para 1

…There is, however, another line of authority, beginning with R v Funderburk [1990] 1 WLR 587, that suggests what may be a slightly different basis for admitting the evidence of Galley in this instance. Of the decisions in question, the most favourable to the appellant is Chandu Nagrecha [1997] 2 Cr App R 401, in wh…
Harris v Tippett
170 ER 1277 Para 1

…“disgraceful”: see Starkie on Evidence (3 rd ed 1842) at 192-195. It began to assume its modern form in Harris v Tippett (1811) 2 Camp 637; 170 ER 1277, where Lawrence J refused to allow evidence to be adduced to contradict the denial of a defence witness that he had attempted to dissuade a witness for the pla…
[1965] AC 595
[1965] AC 595 Para 1

…oid potential endless exploration of issues which may obliquely throw some light on the issues in question, Toohey v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1965] AC 595 at 607. So far as jury trials are concerned, it serves to preserve the trier of fact from being distracted by irrelevant, or only marginally relevant…
[1995] 2 NZLR 330
[1995] 2 NZLR 330

…[1999] Crim L R 387; but the Australian authorities which have been mentioned support the approach adopted in the passage in question. See also R v C [1995] 2 NZLR 330, 335-336.…
[1986] 2 NZLR 121
[1986] 2 NZLR 121 Para 1

…prosecution witness to act in a certain way “will be rare”; but the decision was followed by the Court of Appeal in New Zealand in R v Katipa [1986] 2 NZLR 121.…
Attorney-General v Hitchcock
(1847) 154 ER 38 Para 1

…on, 376 Mass. 90, 378 N.E.2d 987 (1978); People v Mandel , 61 A.D.2d 563, 403 N.Y.S.2d 63 (1978); State v Boiter , 396 S.E.2d 364 (S.C.1990). [6] Attorney-General v Hitchcock (1847) 1 Ex.91, 154 ER 38, per Pollock CB at 42.…
Urban Transport Authority of New South Wales v Nweiser
4 QBD 217 Para 1

…ich support an extension of the categories of evidence which may be admitted in rebuttal of matters of credit. In Urban Transport Authority v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471 evidence was sought to be led that a worker, prior to the alleged subject injury at work, sought to enlist fellow-workers to support a false claim wh…
170 ER 1278
170 ER 1278 Para 1

…Reported as a note to that case is another ruling of the same judge on the same circuit in a matter of R v Yewin (1811) 2 Camp 638; 170 ER 1278. On an indictment for stealing wheat, defence counsel asked the principal witness for the crown whether he had not been charged with robbing the accused (who was his e…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
101 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441
PARTIES:	R v LAWRENCE, Mark Richard (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 104 of 2001 DC No 3421 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 October 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 September 2001
JUDGES:	McPherson and Thomas JJA, White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside and a new trial ordered of the counts in the indictment.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE – whether Trial Judge should have allowed the admission of evidence to establish that the complainant had previously threatened to wrongly accuse a fellow inmate of propositioning him for sex CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – whether evidence of earlier threats admissible as evidence of a propensity or disposition on the part of the complainant to make false complaints of a sexual nature CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – GENERALLY Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1), s 668E(1A) Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 101 Attorney-General v Hitchcock (1847) 1 Ex 91; 154 ER 38, considered Chandu Nagrecha [1997] 2 Cr App R 401, Knight v Jones; ex p Jones [1981] Qd R 98, applied Natta v Canham (1991) 32 FCR 282, considered Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1, considered Piddington v Bennett and Wood Pty Ltd (1940) 63 CLR 533, considered R v Busby (1982) 75 Cr App R 79, considered R v Funderburk [1990] 1 WLR 587, considered R v Kochnieff (1987) 33 A Crim R 1, considered R v Lowrie & Ross [2000] QCA 405; CA Nos 95 and 92 of 2000, 3 October 2000, considered R v LSS [1998] QCA 303, CA No 128 of 1998, 2 October 1998, considered R v Phillips (1936) 26 Cr App R 17, considered Smith v The Queen (1993) 9 WAR 99, distinguished Urban Transport Authority of NSW v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471, considered
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter for the appellant N Weston for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent