R v Maddison - [2013] QCA 132

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Maddison [2013] QCA 132

PARTIES:

R
v
MADDISON, Steven Robert
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 328 of 2012
DC No 285 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

31 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 May 2013

JUDGES:

Muir and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under care (count 2); and acquitted of another count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under care (count 4) – where the appellant appeals against the guilty verdict in respect of count 2 as unsafe and unsatisfactory on the basis that it was inconsistent with the acquittal on count 4 – where the appellant contends that the jury’s not guilty finding in respect of count 4 damaged the complainant’s credibility with respect to all counts on the indictment – where the appellant contends that the different verdicts represent an affront to logic and commonsense and it was not open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – whether the verdicts can be reconciled

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND CO-INCIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – PROPENSITY EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED ACTS – where the trial judge admitted evidence of a witness, C, on the basis that it demonstrated a sexual interest by the appellant in young females – where the appellant contends that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value – where the appellant submits that the trial judge erred in failing to give the jury a warning against propensity reasoning – whether the trial judge erred in not excluding the evidence of C – whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury as to the use they might make of uncharged discreditable conduct on behalf of the appellant

BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275; [1997] HCA 47, cited
HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, considered
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 12, cited
KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; [2001] HCA 11, considered
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, considered
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, considered
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; [1995] HCA 7, considered
Phillips v The Queen (2006) 225 CLR 303; [2006] HCA 4, cited
R v WO[2006] QCA 21, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR…

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 Maddison

Details

AGLC: R v Maddison [2013] QCA 132
Case: [2013] QCA 132
Decision Date: 31 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under care, and appealed against this conviction on the grounds that the verdict was inconsistent with the acquittal on a similar charge. The appellant argued that the acquittal on the second charge damaged the credibility of the complainant in respect of all charges, and that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of uncharged acts by the appellant that demonstrated a sexual interest in young females, and in failing to give a warning against propensity reasoning.

The court found that the verdicts could be reconciled and that there was no inconsistency between them. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence of the uncharged acts, as its probative value was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in directing the jury as to the use they might make of uncharged discreditable conduct on behalf of the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Maddison [2013] QCA 132
PARTIES:	R v MADDISON, Steven Robert (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 328 of 2012 DC No 285 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	31 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 May 2013
JUDGES:	Muir and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under care (count 2); and acquitted of another count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under care (count 4) – where the appellant appeals against the guilty verdict in respect of count 2 as unsafe and unsatisfactory on the basis that it was inconsistent with the acquittal on count 4 – where the appellant contends that the jury’s not guilty finding in respect of count 4 damaged the complainant’s credibility with respect to all counts on the indictment – where the appellant contends that the different verdicts represent an affront to logic and commonsense and it was not open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – whether the verdicts can be reconciled CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND CO-INCIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – PROPENSITY EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED ACTS – where the trial judge admitted evidence of a witness, C, on the basis that it demonstrated a sexual interest by the appellant in young females – where the appellant contends that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value – where the appellant submits that the trial judge erred in failing to give the jury a warning against propensity reasoning – whether the trial judge erred in not excluding the evidence of C – whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury as to the use they might make of uncharged discreditable conduct on behalf of the appellant BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275; [1997] HCA 47, cited HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, considered Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 12, cited KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; [2001] HCA 11, considered M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, considered MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, considered Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; [1995] HCA 7, considered Phillips v The Queen (2006) 225 CLR 303; [2006] HCA 4, cited R v WO[2006] QCA 21, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR…