R v LZ - [2009] QCA 293

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LZ [2009] QCA 293

PARTIES:

R
v
LZ
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 41 of 2009
DC No 75 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

2 October 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 September 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Muir JA and Cullinane 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 – the appellant was convicted after a trial of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with circumstances of aggravation – the appellant was also convicted after a trial of a number of related sexual offences including rape and indecent treatment, but was acquitted of one charge – whether the verdicts were unreasonable

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1)

MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v Gleadhill [2002] QCA 204, cited

R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, cited

COUNSEL:

D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant's wife appeared on his behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The appellant pleaded not guilty in the District Court at Ipswich to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with circumstances of aggravation that in the course of the relationship he indecently dealt with, and digitally raped the complainant (count 1); six counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 (counts 2 to 5 and count 7); two counts of digital rape (counts 6 and 13); and five counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 (counts 8 to 12). He was convicted after a six day trial on 26 February 2009 on all charges but count 3 on which he was acquitted. His sentence was adjourned to obtain a psychiatric report. On 1 September 2009, he was sentenced to an effective term of five years imprisonment suspended after two years with an operational period of three years. He has appealed only against his convictions on the ground that the verdicts were unreasonable.

These are my reasons for dismissing the appeal.

The appellant's contentions

The appellant was not legally represented in his appeal. He informed this Court that he had some learning difficulties and requested that his wife, who had prepared detailed arguments, speak on his behalf. This Court gave leave to the appellant's wife to speak for him. She was physically disabled and elderly and requested that she be allowed to make her submissions whilst seated at the Bar table. Again, this Court gave her leave to do so. Neither the appellant nor his wife provided this Court with a written outline of argument…

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 LZ

Details

AGLC: R v LZ [2009] QCA 293
Case: [2009] QCA 293
Decision Date: 2 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, LZ, appealed against convictions relating to a sexual relationship with a child, which included charges of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with circumstances of aggravation, as well as other related sexual offences such as rape and indecent treatment. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal, which was required to determine whether the verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence presented at the trial.

The court considered whether the verdicts were unreasonable, taking into account the evidence provided during the trial. The court noted that it was not the role of the appellate court to weigh the evidence afresh or substitute its view for that of the jury. Rather, the court was required to determine whether the jury could have reasonably reached the verdicts based on the evidence presented. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts, and that the jury was entitled to find the appellant guilty of the charges.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction. The court held that the verdicts were not unreasonable or insupportable, and that the appellant's convictions were upheld. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the appellant remains convicted of the charges.

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 LZ [2009] QCA 293
PARTIES:	R v LZ (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 41 of 2009 DC No 75 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	2 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 September 2009
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Muir JA and Cullinane 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 – the appellant was convicted after a trial of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with circumstances of aggravation – the appellant was also convicted after a trial of a number of related sexual offences including rape and indecent treatment, but was acquitted of one charge – whether the verdicts were unreasonable Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1) MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Gleadhill [2002] QCA 204, cited R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, cited
COUNSEL:	D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant's wife appeared on his behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent