R v M - [2003] QCA 231

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v M [2003] QCA 231

PARTIES:

R
v
M
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 94 of 2003
DC 80 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal - Cairns Circuit

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

27 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2003

JUDGES:

Davies JA and Cullinane and Jones JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant convicted of indecent dealing and maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child - where appellant acquitted on other counts - where jury directed as to the need to consider each charge separately - whether rational basis existed for the jury to return the verdicts of guilty on some counts and not guilty on others

MacKenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348, followed

MFA v R (2002) 193 ALR 184, considered

COUNSEL:

B M Murray (Cairns) for appellant
L J Clare for respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

DAVIES JA: The appellant was charged on an indictment containing 16 counts. He was convicted after a trial in the District Court in Cairns on the following of those counts: one of maintaining unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 which was count 1; five of the indecent dealing, which were counts 2, 9, 12, 15 and 16; and two counts of procuring a child to commit an indecent act which were counts 13 and 14. He was acquitted by the jury in respect of two counts of indecent dealing, which were counts 4 and 6, four of wilfully exposing a child to an indecent picture, counts 3, 8, 10, 11, one of wilful exposure of a child to an indecent videotape, count 7 and one of procuring a child to commit and indecent act, count 5.

There were two complainants. The principal one was the appellant's stepdaughter, then aged 12. The second was a friend of the stepdaughter who was 13 years of age. The appellant appeals against those convictions. In argument the appeal has been confined to an appeal against the convictions in counts 2 and 9, and it is submitted in consequence, count 1, the remaining count.

The appeal against conviction on counts 2 and 9 are on the basis of inconsistency between the conviction on those counts and the acquittals on counts 3 to 8. The appeal on count 1 is based on the assumption of a successful appeal on either count 2 or count 9 and a submission that in consequence there are not three or more occasions within the meaning of 229B of the Criminal Code.

It is unnecessary to explore that last contention further unless the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v M and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] QCA 231
Decision Date: 27 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v M was brought before the court, with the appellant challenging his conviction for indecent dealing and maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. The appellant was acquitted on other related charges. The jury was properly directed to consider each charge independently. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a rational basis for the jury to convict the appellant on some charges while acquitting him on others.

The central legal issue was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsustainable. The court examined if the jury's decision to convict on some counts and acquit on others could be supported by a rational assessment of the evidence. The court considered precedents such as MacKenzie v R and MFA v R, which provided guidance on the principles governing the rationality of jury verdicts. The court assessed whether the jury had a rational basis for distinguishing between the charges based on the evidence presented.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the jury's verdict, although seemingly inconsistent, was not unreasonable or unsustainable. The court acknowledged that the jury had a rational basis for convicting the appellant on some charges while acquitting him on others. The evidence supported the conclusion that the jury's decision was reasonable and within the bounds of what a properly directed jury could conclude. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction, thereby upholding the appellant's conviction for indecent dealing and maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. The court's decision affirmed that the jury's verdict, while seemingly inconsistent, was rational and supported by the evidence presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 M [2003] QCA 231
PARTIES:	R v M (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 94 of 2003 DC 80 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal - Cairns Circuit
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	27 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	27 May 2003
JUDGES:	Davies JA and Cullinane and Jones JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant convicted of indecent dealing and maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child - where appellant acquitted on other counts - where jury directed as to the need to consider each charge separately - whether rational basis existed for the jury to return the verdicts of guilty on some counts and not guilty on others MacKenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348, followed MFA v R (2002) 193 ALR 184, considered
COUNSEL:	B M Murray (Cairns) for appellant L J Clare for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent