R v Maddox - [1998] QCA 413

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND [1998] QCA 413

C.A. No. 299 of 1998

Brisbane
[R v Maddox]

THE QUEEN

LESLIE JAMES MADDOX

(Applicant) Appellant
McPherson JA
Thomas JA
White J

Judgment delivered 4 December 1998
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made.
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL - whether inconsistent verdicts - R v Bickle (CA No 346 of 1992, 2 September 1993) and Mackenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348 discussed and applied - seven year sentence for rape of a man.
R v Bickle (CA No 346 of 1992, 2 September 1993)
Jones v R (1997) 72 ALJR 78
Mackenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348
R v Kirkman (1987) 44 SASR 591

Counsel:

Mr P. Leask for the applicant/appellant. Mr M.C. Chowdhury for the respondent.
Solicitors: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant.
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent.
Hearing Date: 24 November 1998

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 4 December 1998

I agree with the reasons of Thomas J.A. for holding that both the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed. I would, merely by way of emphasis, add that I am satisfied that there was evidence on which the jury could properly and reasonably have arrived at the verdicts reached. Acquitting the appellant of some of the counts or circumstances of aggravation with which he was charged did not, in the circumstances of the case, signify that they rejected as unreliable the substance of the complainant’s evidence at trial; but demonstrates at most that they were cautious about some details as to which they considered he may possibly have been mistaken.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THOMAS JA

Judgment delivered 4 December 1998

The appellant was found guilty upon three of the five counts tried in the District Court. The counts and the verdicts are set out hereunder.

Counts Verdicts

1. Unlawful deprivation of liberty Guilty

2.

Indecent assault with a circumstance of aggravation (i.e. fellatio whilst armed)

Not

Guilty

of

indecent assault
whilst armed
Guilty of indecent
assault

3. Rape Guilty
4. Armed Robbery Not guilty of armed
robbery
Not guilty of robbery
5. Indecent assault Not guilty

The only ground of appeal in relation to the convictions is that they are unsafe and unsatisfactory in that the verdicts are inconsistent.
The complainant and the appellant were both young men who had met in 1991, become friends and drifted apart. The Crown case is that the complainant who had not seen the appellant for about a year at the time of these events was confronted by the appellant on the evening of 31 July 1997. The complainant had attended a function organised by the Assemblies of God Church and had been driven by a fellow member to a 7-Eleven store which was only a few hundred metres from 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.

Continue reading R v Maddox

Details

AGLC: R v Maddox [1998] QCA 413
Case: [1998] QCA 413
Decision Date: 4/12/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Maddox, the appellant was convicted of multiple serious offences, including the rape of a man. The appeal was against both the conviction and the sentence imposed, which was seven years. The court considered whether the verdicts returned by the jury were inconsistent and unreasonable, and whether the sentence was appropriate.

The central legal issue was whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable. The court had to consider if the jury's acquittal on some charges and on a circumstance of aggravation meant that the overall verdict was flawed. This involved an analysis of the evidence presented and the jury's reasoning in arriving at their verdicts. The court referenced previous cases, such as R v Bickle and Mackenzie v R, to determine the standards for consistency and reasonableness in jury verdicts.

The court concluded that the jury's verdicts were neither inconsistent nor unreasonable. The jury may have had some doubts about the more sensational aspects of the evidence but ultimately found the overall account of the respondent to be credible. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence were dismissed.

No further orders were made as the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

WHITE J

The application for leave to appeal against sentence will therefore be refused. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - Judgment delivered 4 December 1998 I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Thomas JA and agree for the reasons which he has given that the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed. I am satisfied that by acquitting the appellant of some of the charges and of a circumstance of aggravation the jury did not return verdicts which were inconsistent and unreasonable. They may have had some doubt about the more lurid of the details of the offences given by the respondent whilst overall been satisfied with the correctness of his account of what occurred.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WHITE J

Full text does not contain this section.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL - whether inconsistent verdicts - R v Bickle (CA No 346 of 1992, 2 September 1993) and Mackenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348 discussed and applied - seven year sentence for rape of a man.
*R v Bickle* (CA No 346 of 1992, 2 September 1993) *Jones v R* (1997) 72 ALJR 78 *Mackenzie v R* (1996) 190 CLR 348 *R v Kirkman* (1987) 44 SASR 591
Counsel:	Mr P. Leask for the applicant/appellant. Mr M.C. Chowdhury for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant. Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	24 November 1998

3.	Rape	Guilty
4.	Armed Robbery	Not guilty of armed robbery
Not guilty of robbery
5.	Indecent assault	Not guilty