R v M

Case [2000] QCA 20 11 February 2000

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v M [2000] QCA 20

PARTIES: R
v
M
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 197 of 1999
DC No 214 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction
Application for leave to appeal against sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON: 11 February 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 30 November 1999

JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Davies JA and Helman J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:
Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – statement given by complainant under s 93A Evidence Act 1977– corroborated by complainant’s mother - whether evidence given by complainant in cross examination was inconsistent with statement – whether jury should have had reasonable doubt

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – COMPLAINTS – FIRST REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY – relevant only to the credibility of complainant’s evidence - factors taken into account depend on circumstances of the case - whether complaint was made "at the earliest reasonable opportunity"

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, considered

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – POWER TO DISMISS APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – whether trial judge’s failure to caution jury as to the reliability of the evidence given the age of the complainant and absence of corroboration caused a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code (Qld), s 632

Robinson v The Queen [1999] HCA 42; (1999) 73 ALJR 1314, considered

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – whether sentence imposed at trial was manifestly excessive

R v Clare CA No 170 of 1994, 1 September 1994, considered
R v Kiellerup CA No 168 of 1998, 14 August 1998,            considered
R v M [1999] QCA 118; CA No 445 of 1998, 13 April 1999, considered
R v Mansfield CA No 261 of 1997, 6 August 1997,            considered
R v Pham [1996] QCA 3; CA No 435 of 1995, 6 February 1996, distinguished
R v Solway [1995] QCA 374; CA Nos 164 and 187 of 1995, 22 August 1995, considered
R v Trapp CA No 433 of 1995, 8 February 1999,            distinguished
R v Watson CA No 255 of 1996, 27 August 1996,            distinguished

COUNSEL: Mr S J Hamlyn-Harris for applicant/appellant
Mr D Meredith for respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

McMURDO P: I have read the reasons for judgment of Davies…

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 M

Details

AGLC: R v M [2000] QCA 20
Case: [2000] QCA 20
Decision Date: 11 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, R, sought to appeal against his conviction for various criminal offences, claiming that the verdict was unreasonable or unsustainable. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of a particular Australian jurisdiction. The respondent, M, opposed the appeal, arguing that the jury's verdict was properly supported by the evidence presented at the trial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury should have entertained reasonable doubt in convicting the appellant, given the inconsistencies between the complainant's in-court testimony and her prior written statement, as well as the corroborating evidence provided by the complainant's mother. The court examined whether these inconsistencies were significant enough to render the verdict unreasonable or unsustainable. The court also considered the impact of the statutory provisions and case law on the assessment of the credibility of the complainant's evidence.

The court found that the jury was entitled to assess the credibility of the complainant's evidence, including any inconsistencies, and that the inconsistencies did not necessarily render the verdict unreasonable or unsustainable. The court emphasised that the jury was free to accept or reject any part of a witness's evidence, including prior statements, and that the jury's verdict should not be disturbed unless it was palpably unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court also noted that the complainant's mother's evidence corroborated the complainant's account, which further supported the jury's verdict. As a result, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v M [2000] QCA 20

Most Recent Citation

Roger Ward (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen [2017] VSCA 37

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

Roger Ward (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen
[2017] VSCA 37 Para 1

…e inherent difficulties in cross-examining children, rather than to any specific deficiencies in the evidence itself.[52] [52]See, for example, R v M [2000] QCA 20; R v DP (2007) 176 A Crim R 382, 389 [32]; Bowles v State of WA [2011] WASCA 191 [61]; SLJ v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 514, 522 [33]; Martin v The Queen…
R v MBX
[2013] QCA 214

…ted R v King (2004) 59 NSWLR 515; [2004] NSWCCA 20, considered R v M (2000) 109 A Crim R 530; [2000] QCA 20, considered R v Marshall [2010] QCA 43, cited R v Mead [2010] QCA 370, cited R v Miletic [1997] 1 VR 593, cited R v Nguyen [2013] QCA 133, cited R v Nous (2010) 26 VR 96; [2010] VSCA 42, considered R v OP…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Robinson v The Queen
[1999] HCA 42 Para 1

…risk of miscarriage of justice, as long as the warning does not suggest that a class of complainants is unreliable: see Robinson v The Queen .[1] [1][1999] HCA 42; (1999) 73 ALJR 1314.…
R v M
[1999] QCA 118 Para 1

…circumstances. The sentences relied on by the respondent, Clare CA No 170 of 1994, 1 September 1994, Mansfield CA No 261 of 1997, 6 August 1997 and M [1999] QCA 118; CA No 445 of 1998, 13 April 1999 although none is closely comparable to this, also support a conclusion that the sentence here was not manifestly ex…
R v LSS
[1998] QCA 303 Para 1

…at 444 – 445; Suresh v R (1998) 153 ALR 145 at [4]; Warner at 385, 386. I agree, with respect, with the criticism by Pincus JA in R v Schneider [1998] QCA 303; CA No 128 of 1998, 2 October 1998, of the statement made in the joint judgment of the High Court in Jones v The Queen (1997) 71 ALJR 538 at 539.…
Suresh v The Queen
[1998] HCA 23 Para 1

…J in M v The Queen supra at 513 – 515. [4] Kilby v R (1973) 129 CLR 460 at 472; Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 at 444 – 445; Suresh v R (1998) 153 ALR 145 at [4]; Warner at 385, 386. I agree, with respect, with the criticism by Pincus JA in R v Schneider [1998] QCA 303; CA No 128 of 1998, 2 October 1998, of t…
Vincent Raymond Jones v The Queen
[1997] HCA 56 Para 1

…visited him on a number of occasions but denied the commission of any of the offences. [2] M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 493; Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 at 450 – 452.…
Jones v The Queen
[1997] HCA 12 Para 1

…and her siblings visited him on a number of occasions but denied the commission of any of the offences. [2] M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 493; Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 at 450 – 452.…
Crofts v The Queen
[1996] HCA 22 Para 1

…995) 78 ACrimR 383 at 384 – 386 and by Gaudron J in M v The Queen supra at 513 – 515. [4] Kilby v R (1973) 129 CLR 460 at 472; Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 at 444 – 445; Suresh v R (1998) 153 ALR 145 at [4]; Warner at 385, 386. I agree, with respect, with the criticism by Pincus JA in R v Schneider [1998] QC…
R v Pham
[1996] QCA 3 Para 1

…tended for the appellant that an appropriate sentence would have been one of 18 months imprisonment. For that contention the appellant relied on Pham [1996] QCA 3; CA No 435 of 1995, 6 February 1996, Trapp CA No 433 of 1995, 8 February 1996, Watson CA No 255 of 1996, 27 August 1996, Kiellerup CA No 168 of 1998,…
R v Solway; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[1995] QCA 374 Para 1

…uary 1996, Trapp CA No 433 of 1995, 8 February 1996, Watson CA No 255 of 1996, 27 August 1996, Kiellerup CA No 168 of 1998, 14 August 1998 and Solway [1995] QCA 374; CA Nos 164 and 187 of 1995, 22 August 1995.…
M v the Queen
[1994] HCA 63 Para 1

…agreed that the complainant and her siblings visited him on a number of occasions but denied the commission of any of the offences. [2] M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 493; Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 at 450 – 452.…
Kilby v The Queen
[1973] HCA 30 Para 1

…n was discussed by this Court in R v Warner (1995) 78 ACrimR 383 at 384 – 386 and by Gaudron J in M v The Queen supra at 513 – 515. [4] Kilby v R (1973) 129 CLR 460 at 472; Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 at 444 – 445; Suresh v R (1998) 153 ALR 145 at [4]; Warner at 385, 386. I agree, with respect, with the cri…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
93A 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Jury Act 1995 (Qld)
50 1 mention (from Para 1)
Oaths Act 1867 (Qld)
22 1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v M [2000] QCA 20
PARTIES:	R v M (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 197 of 1999 DC No 214 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction Application for leave to appeal against sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	11 February 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 November 1999
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and Helman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – statement given by complainant under s 93A Evidence Act 1977– corroborated by complainant’s mother - whether evidence given by complainant in cross examination was inconsistent with statement – whether jury should have had reasonable doubt Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – COMPLAINTS – FIRST REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY – relevant only to the credibility of complainant’s evidence - factors taken into account depend on circumstances of the case - whether complaint was made "at the earliest reasonable opportunity" M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, considered CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – POWER TO DISMISS APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – whether trial judge’s failure to caution jury as to the reliability of the evidence given the age of the complainant and absence of corroboration caused a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code (Qld), s 632 Robinson v The Queen [1999] HCA 42; (1999) 73 ALJR 1314, considered CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – whether sentence imposed at trial was manifestly excessive R v Clare CA No 170 of 1994, 1 September 1994, considered R v Kiellerup CA No 168 of 1998, 14 August 1998, considered R v M [1999] QCA 118; CA No 445 of 1998, 13 April 1999, considered R v Mansfield CA No 261 of 1997, 6 August 1997, considered R v Pham [1996] QCA 3; CA No 435 of 1995, 6 February 1996, distinguished R v Solway [1995] QCA 374; CA Nos 164 and 187 of 1995, 22 August 1995, considered R v Trapp CA No 433 of 1995, 8 February 1999, distinguished R v Watson CA No 255 of 1996, 27 August 1996, distinguished
COUNSEL:	Mr S J Hamlyn-Harris for applicant/appellant Mr D Meredith for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent