R v LBI - [2025] QCA 104

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LBI [2025] QCA 104

PARTIES:

R
v
LBI
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 190 of 2024
DC No 11 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Roma – Date of Conviction: 8 August 2024 (Lynch KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 June 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Bradley JA and North J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of nine counts of sexual offending against a child – where the appellant contends that the trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately or at all in relation to the evidence of text messages exchanged between the appellant and the complainant child – where the prosecutor sought to rely on the appellant’s statements in the text messages as post-offence conduct that was evidence the accused knew he was guilty of the charged offences – where the trial judge ruled the appellant’s statements in the text messages were not admissions and could not be used in the way proposed by the prosecutor – where the prosecution relied on the text messages to bolster the complainant’s credit – where the prosecution relied on the appellant’s evidence about the text messages to damage the appellant’s credit – whether the appellant’s statements in the text messages were capable of amounting to admissions by conduct and as demonstrating a consciousness of guilt – whether a direction in the style of that in Edwardsv The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 653 was necessary

Edwardsv The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 653; [1992] HCA 19, considered
R v WBS (2022) 301 A Crim R 491; [2022] QCA 180, followed

COUNSEL:

J Robson for the appellant
A J Walklate for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MULLINS P: I agree with Bradley JA.
BRADLEY JA: On 8 August 2024, a jury found the appellant guilty of nine counts of sexual offending against a child. These were one count of engaging in conduct in relation to a child under 16 years with intent to facilitate the procurement of the child to engage in a sexual act, two counts of indecent treatment of the child, five counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of the child, and one count of rape of the child. He was convicted of these nine offences. The jury found the appellant not guilty of one other count of carnal knowledge of the child.
The Crown case was that the appellant had committed the procurement offence between 1 June 2021 and 1 January 2022. Over this period, the complainant was aged 11 and 12. The appellant was alleged to have committed each of the other offences between 30 September 2021 and 1 February 2022,…

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 LBI

Details

AGLC: R v LBI [2025] QCA 104
Case: [2025] QCA 104
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted in the County Court of nine counts of sexual offences against a child. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the conviction on the basis that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the significance of text messages exchanged between the appellant and the complainant child. The prosecutor argued that the text messages, which included admissions by the appellant, were evidence of post-offence conduct demonstrating a consciousness of guilt. The appellant contended that the trial judge did not adequately direct the jury on whether the text messages amounted to admissions by conduct. The appellant argued that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on this issue amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The court considered whether the text messages were capable of amounting to admissions by conduct and, if so, whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury on this issue. The court found that the text messages were not capable of amounting to admissions by conduct as they were not statements of fact made by the appellant in circumstances that would imply an admission of guilt. The court also found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient and that no further direction was required. The court held that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial and dismissed the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient and that no further direction was required. The court held that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial and dismissed the appeal.

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 LBI [2025] QCA 104
PARTIES:	R v LBI (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 190 of 2024 DC No 11 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Roma – Date of Conviction: 8 August 2024 (Lynch KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	20 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 June 2025
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Bradley JA and North J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of nine counts of sexual offending against a child – where the appellant contends that the trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately or at all in relation to the evidence of text messages exchanged between the appellant and the complainant child – where the prosecutor sought to rely on the appellant’s statements in the text messages as post-offence conduct that was evidence the accused knew he was guilty of the charged offences – where the trial judge ruled the appellant’s statements in the text messages were not admissions and could not be used in the way proposed by the prosecutor – where the prosecution relied on the text messages to bolster the complainant’s credit – where the prosecution relied on the appellant’s evidence about the text messages to damage the appellant’s credit – whether the appellant’s statements in the text messages were capable of amounting to admissions by conduct and as demonstrating a consciousness of guilt – whether a direction in the style of that in Edwardsv The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 653 was necessary Edwardsv The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 653; [1992] HCA 19, considered R v WBS (2022) 301 A Crim R 491; [2022] QCA 180, followed
COUNSEL:	J Robson for the appellant A J Walklate for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent