R v Leedie - [2015] QCA 216

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Leedie [2015] QCA 216

PARTIES:

R
v
LEEDIE, Jias Daniel Wesley
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 49 of 2015
DC No 448 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 18 March 2015

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 September 2015

JUDGES:

Gotterson JA and Philip McMurdo and Peter Lyons 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 – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of eight counts – where count 1 charged the appellant with an offence against s 355 of the Criminal Code (Qld), namely, deprivation of liberty – where counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 concerned offences against s 349 of the Code, namely, rape – where count 9 concerned an offence against s 320A(1) of the Code, namely, torture – where count 5 concerned an offence against section 350 of the Code, namely, attempted rape – where the jury found the appellant not guilty in relation to count 5 – where for each of counts 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 the appellant was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment – where by virtue of s 161A(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), the appellant was convicted of serious violent offences in respect of each of those counts – where on counts 7 and 9 the appellant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and on count 1 to twelve months’ imprisonment – where all prison terms are to be served concurrently – where the complainant attended the appellant’s house to engage in consensual sexual intercourse – where the appellant became aware of messages on the complainant’s phone between her and the appellant’s younger brother – where the appellant then began to deprive the complainant of her liberty and repeatedly assaulted, raped and tortured the complainant – where the appellant advances two grounds of appeal – where the first is that the convictions were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence – whether the convictions were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – OTHER CASES – where the second ground of appeal is that the learned trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury and order the complainant be further examined at the trial – whether the learned trial judge erred and a miscarriage of justice occurred as a consequence

Criminal Code (Qld), s 320A(1), s 349, s 350, s 355
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21AK
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A(a)

MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, considered
R v Thompson [1983] 1 Qd R 224, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared…

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 Leedie

Details

AGLC: R v Leedie [2015] QCA 216
Case: [2015] QCA 216
Decision Date: 6 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Leedie, the appellant was convicted of eight counts related to a violent sexual assault on the complainant. The court had to decide whether the convictions were unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The appellant was found guilty of deprivation of liberty, rape, and torture. The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The trial judge did not err in refusing to discharge the jury or order further examination of the complainant, thus no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The primary legal issue in this appeal was whether the convictions were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The appellant argued that the jury's verdict was unreasonable, but the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's findings. The court considered the credibility of the complainant and the consistency of her evidence. The court also examined the appellant's defence and found it lacking. The court held that the jury was entitled to find the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented.

The court examined the evidence in detail and found that the complainant's account of events was credible and consistent. The court found that the appellant's actions were consistent with the complainant's evidence and that the appellant's defence was implausible. The court held that the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's defence and find him guilty of the charges. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in refusing to discharge the jury or order further examination of the complainant. The court held that the trial judge's decision was reasonable and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The appellant was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment for counts 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8, to be served concurrently. The appellant was also sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for counts 7 and 9 and twelve months' imprisonment for count 1, to be served concurrently with the other sentences. The court held that the sentences imposed were appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offences committed by the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The appellant was sentenced on 19 March 2015. For each of counts 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8, a sentence of twelve years’ imprisonment was imposed. By virtue of section 161A(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), the appellant was convicted of serious violent offences in respect of each of those counts. On counts 7 and 9 the appellant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and on count 1 to twelve months’ imprisonment. All prison terms are to be served concurrently.The complainant’s evidence-in-chief In July 2013, the complainant was 31 years old and lived at Kallangur.[1] She had been in an “off and on” relationship with the appellant over a period of about six years.[2] Some months after the relationship with the appellant ended and in the month of July, the complainant saw the appellant at his house in Lawnton.[3] She went there because he had been ringing her and asking her to visit so they could have sexual intercourse.[4] The complainant drove to the appellant’s house at around 10 o’clock at night.[5] He let her inside and they had consensual sex.[6] After the intercourse the complainant said she wanted to go home to her children but the appellant locked the door and would not let her leave.[7][1]AB18, ll12-34.[2]AB19, ll20-26.[3]AB19, ll28-41; AB21, ll2-3.[4]AB20, ll1-20.[5]AB20, ll24-29.[6]AB21, ll9-23.[7]AB21, ll12-47. The complainant’s phone beeped and the appellant took it from her.[8] The appellant told the complainant that she was not allowed to leave until he had checked through her phone.[9] The complainant gave the appellant the PIN to unlock the phone and the appellant looked through her messages.[10] When the appellant saw a message from the complainant to his brother, Paul, he immediately began attacking the complainant.[11] The appellant grabbed her by the hair, threw her to the floor, spat on her and kicked and beat her.[12] The appellant put the complainant on the bed, tied her hands with a black belt, pulled down her pants and anally raped her.[13] When he ejaculated the appellant put his ejaculate over the complainant’s back and hair.[14] These allegations constituted count 2.[8]AB22, ll6-7.[9]AB22, ll1-4.[10]AB22, ll15-21.[11]AB22, l21 – AB23, l18.[12]AB23, ll10-18.[13]AB23, ll43-44; AB24, ll1-35.[14]AB24, ll4-35. The complainant rolled onto the floor and freed her hands from the belt.[15] The appellant kicked her to the face and head and hit her with the belt.[16] The appellant then hit the complainant with a pole.[17][15]AB25, ll2-3.[16]AB25, ll1-5.[17]AB25, ll6-7; AB25, l27 – AB26, l11. The appellant continued to hit the complainant with the pole.[18] The complainant crawled under a chair then the appellant picked her up and threw her on the bed.[19] He then tied her up “like a pig tie”[20] and put a dirty sock in her mouth before anally raping her again.[21] These allegations constituted count 3.[18]AB27, ll3-15.[19]AB27, ll14-32.[20]AB28, l1.[21]AB28, ll1-30. The complainant was able to free her feet from the rope and roll onto the floor.[22] As she was trying to free herself the appellant put a white object into her vagina.[23] These allegations constituted count 6.[22]AB28, ll32-35.[23]AB28, ll44-47.

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 Leedie [2015] QCA 216
PARTIES:	R v LEEDIE, Jias Daniel Wesley (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 49 of 2015 DC No 448 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 18 March 2015
DELIVERED ON:	6 November 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 September 2015
JUDGES:	Gotterson JA and Philip McMurdo and Peter Lyons 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 – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of eight counts – where count 1 charged the appellant with an offence against s 355 of the Criminal Code (Qld), namely, deprivation of liberty – where counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 concerned offences against s 349 of the Code, namely, rape – where count 9 concerned an offence against s 320A(1) of the Code, namely, torture – where count 5 concerned an offence against section 350 of the Code, namely, attempted rape – where the jury found the appellant not guilty in relation to count 5 – where for each of counts 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 the appellant was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment – where by virtue of s 161A(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), the appellant was convicted of serious violent offences in respect of each of those counts – where on counts 7 and 9 the appellant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and on count 1 to twelve months’ imprisonment – where all prison terms are to be served concurrently – where the complainant attended the appellant’s house to engage in consensual sexual intercourse – where the appellant became aware of messages on the complainant’s phone between her and the appellant’s younger brother – where the appellant then began to deprive the complainant of her liberty and repeatedly assaulted, raped and tortured the complainant – where the appellant advances two grounds of appeal – where the first is that the convictions were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence – whether the convictions were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – OTHER CASES – where the second ground of appeal is that the learned trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury and order the complainant be further examined at the trial – whether the learned trial judge erred and a miscarriage of justice occurred as a consequence Criminal Code (Qld), s 320A(1), s 349, s 350, s 355 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21AK Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A(a) MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, considered R v Thompson [1983] 1 Qd R 224, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared…