R v Lough - [2016] QCA 303

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lough [2016] QCA 303

PARTIES:

R
v
LOUGH, Alan Lance
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 147 of 2016
DC No 451 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 20 April 2016

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 November 2016

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 and one count of unlawfully and indecently dealing with that same child when under the age of 16 – where the prosecution case depended principally upon the complainant’s evidence – where the defence case at trial and on appeal was that the sexual relationship occurred after the complainant turned 16 – where the appellant contends the complainant’s evidence was so confused and contradictory that the verdict was unsafe – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Criminal Code (Qld), s 210, s 229B, s 668E(1)

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v RAU[2015] QCA 217, cited
R v SCE[2014] QCA 48, considered
R v SCH[2015] QCA 38, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 90 ALJR 1013; [2016] HCA 35, considered

COUNSEL:

R J Clutterbuck for the appellant
D Balic for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Wellners Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with McMeekin J’s reasons for dismissing this appeal against conviction.

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by McMeekin J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

McMEEKIN J: On 20 April 2016, after a trial conducted before Martin QC DCJ and a jury, Alan Lance Lough was convicted of one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 (count 1) and one count of unlawfully and indecently dealing with that same child when under the age of 16 (count 2).

Mr Lough now appeals against his conviction on the count of maintaining. He initially appealed the conviction on the second count but withdrew that appeal on the hearing of the appeal. He also withdrew an application for leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

The prosecution case, which depended principally…

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 Lough

Details

AGLC: R v Lough [2016] QCA 303
Case: [2016] QCA 303
Decision Date: 18 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lough, the appellant sought to overturn his conviction by a jury for one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 and one count of unlawfully and indecently dealing with that child under the age of 16. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court. The prosecution's case hinged primarily on the testimony of the complainant, while the defence argued at both trial and on appeal that the sexual relationship in question commenced after the complainant had turned 16 years of age. The appellant contended that the complainant's evidence was so inconsistent and contradictory that the verdict reached by the jury was unsafe, thus questioning whether the jury could be satisfied of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The primary issue was whether the jury, acting rationally, could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt based on the complainant's evidence. The court examined the entirety of the evidence, including the complainant's testimony, to assess its reliability and consistency. The court also considered the defence arguments that the evidence was so confused and contradictory that no reasonable jury could have convicted the appellant.

After thorough examination, the court concluded that despite the inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. The court held that the jury, acting rationally, could have accepted the complainant's version of events as true and reliable. The appellant's contention that the evidence was too confused and contradictory for a safe verdict was rejected. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, affirming the jury's verdict.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The appellant remained convicted on both counts of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 and unlawfully and indecently dealing with that child.

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 Lough [2016] QCA 303
PARTIES:	R v LOUGH, Alan Lance (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 147 of 2016 DC No 451 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 20 April 2016
DELIVERED ON:	18 November 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 November 2016
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 and one count of unlawfully and indecently dealing with that same child when under the age of 16 – where the prosecution case depended principally upon the complainant’s evidence – where the defence case at trial and on appeal was that the sexual relationship occurred after the complainant turned 16 – where the appellant contends the complainant’s evidence was so confused and contradictory that the verdict was unsafe – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt Criminal Code (Qld), s 210, s 229B, s 668E(1) M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v RAU[2015] QCA 217, cited R v SCE[2014] QCA 48, considered R v SCH[2015] QCA 38, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited R v Baden-Clay (2016) 90 ALJR 1013; [2016] HCA 35, considered
COUNSEL:	R J Clutterbuck for the appellant D Balic for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Wellners Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent