McPherson and Keane JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:
1. Appeal allowed
2. Convictions quashed
3. New trial ordered on counts 1 and 3
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where appellant was alleged to have committed six counts of rape - where these rapes were alleged to have occurred after the appellant and the complainant had been drinking together for several hours - where the appellant was interviewed by police soon after the alleged incidents occurred while still intoxicated - where the appellant's father, who had accompanied the appellant to the police station, requested an opportunity for the appellant to speak with a solicitor - where this request was not acted upon - where the appellant made several admissions against interest in the course of the interview - where the record of interview was admitted at trial despite the objections of defence counsel - whether the interview had been conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act2000 (Qld) - whether any irregularities that occurred resulted in such unfairness to the appellant that the record of interview should have been excluded by the learned trial judge
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL ALLOWED - where the only rational basis for reconciling the verdicts reached by the jury was that the jury had believed the evidence of the complainant in relation to some counts but not others - where the learned trial judge directed the jury to consider the evidence in relation to each count separately - where the learned trial judge did not direct the jury that any doubt as to the credibility of the complainant's evidence with respect to any one count should be considered when assessing her credibility in relation to the other counts - whether the failure to direct the jury in this way meant that there was a real risk that the jury misunderstood their task and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred
Evidence Act1977 (Qld), s 130 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act2000 (Qld), s 5, s 249, s 250, s 254 Police Powers and Responsibilities Code 2000 (Qld), s 34 Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2000 (Qld), Sch 10
Doyle v City of Glasgow Life Insurance Co (1884) 53 LJ Ch 527, cited
[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 LR
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v LR [2005] QCA 368
Case
[2005] QCA 368
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v LR, the appellant was convicted of six counts of rape. The appeal concerned the admissibility of the record of interview conducted by police and the credibility of the complainant's evidence. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the interview had been conducted in accordance with the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), and whether any irregularities in the interview process resulted in unfairness to the appellant. The court also needed to assess if the jury's verdicts were reasonable and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury may have led to a miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal found that the police interview was conducted in breach of the statutory requirements, as the appellant's request to speak with a solicitor was not acted upon. However, the court held that this breach did not result in unfairness to the appellant, and the record of interview was properly admitted. Regarding the jury's verdicts, the court concluded that the jury must have believed the complainant's evidence in relation to some counts but not others. The court considered that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury to consider any doubt as to the complainant's credibility in relation to all counts when assessing her overall credibility created a real risk that the jury misunderstood their task, resulting in an unreasonable or unsafe verdict.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a new trial on counts 1 and 3. The court found that the irregularities in the police interview did not result in unfairness to the appellant, but the failure to direct the jury properly regarding the complainant's credibility led to an unreasonable or unsafe verdict. As a result, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered on counts 1 and 3, where the evidence of the complainant was found to be questionable.