R v Major & Lawrence - [1997] QCA 100

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 100
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 438 of 1996 C.A. No. 439 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Major]

[R. v. Lawrence]

THE QUEEN

SEAN GREG MAJOR
COLIN WILLIAM LAWRENCE

Appellants

Fitzgerald P.
McPherson J.A.
Helman J.

Judgment delivered 2 May 1997

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court

APPEALS DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – rape – concerted attack by accused – single continuous episode – whether complainant's distressed condition after attack capable of corroborating case against each accused

Counsel:	Mr S.J. Hamlyn-Harris for the appellants Mr M. Byrne Q.C. for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the appellants Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date: 5 December 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 2 May 1997

The issue giving rise to these appeals concerns the adequacy of the trial judge’s directions with respect to corroboration when each of the appellants was convicted of rape. The circumstances are set out in the reasons for judgment of the other members of the Court.

Differences of opinion with respect to the topic of corroborative evidence exist, as appears from the other judgments in this case and other recent decisions of this Court,[1] and there is “a strong opinion that the law of corroboration has become unduly and unnecessarily complex and technical”.[2] I will state my opinion on the applicable principles as briefly and simply as possible.

[1] See, for example, R. v. Clark (C.A. 41 of 1995, unreported, 1 September 1995); R. v. Smith (C.A. 198 of 1995, unreported, 14 November 1995); R. v. Schultz (C.A. 413 of 1995, unreported, 14 December 1995); R. v. Knight (C.A. 370 of 1995, unreported, 19 December 1995); R. v. Snowdon (C.A. 271 of 1995, unreported, 4 June 1996); R. v. Massey (C.A. 72 of 1996, unreported, 12 July 1996); R. v. Cook & ors. (C.A. 219, 231, 242, 243 and 250 of 1996, unreported, 19 November 1996); and cases cited. See also R. v. Camp (Vic. CA 60172 of 1995, unreported, 3 September 1996); R. v. BRS (NSW CCA, BC9600450, unreported, 5 March 1996) and R. v. Pisano (Vic. CA, 58 of 1996, unreported, 15 August 1996). The leading modern High Court authority is Doney v. R. (1990) 171 C.L.R. 207.

[2] Webb v. R. (1994) 181 C.L.R. 41, 94 per Toohey J.

(i)	(a)	Evidence is corroborative of evidence of a matter when the former evidence, if accepted, logically adds to the probability that the matter occurred.
(b)	It is not the function of corroborating evidence to prove a matter of its own force, or, a fortiori, by itself to establish a matter beyond reasonable doubt.

(ii) If corroboration of the evidence of a prosecution witness that an accused committed

an offence is essential,[3] there must be evidence from a source other than that witness which
adds to the probability both that the offence was committed and that it was committed by the
accused.

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 Major & Lawrence

Details

AGLC: R v Major & Lawrence [1997] QCA 100
Case: [1997] QCA 100
Decision Date: 2/05/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals in R v Major and R v Lawrence were heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland and concerned the adequacy of the trial judge's directions regarding the need for corroboration in a case of rape. Each appellant was convicted of raping the complainant and argued that the trial judge erred in ruling that the complainant's distressed condition was capable of corroborating her evidence. The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's directions and dismissed the appeals. The court held that the complainant's condition could corroborate her evidence that the entire episode involving intercourse with both appellants was against her will, as the attacks were a single continuous episode. The court further held that evidence which confirms the complainant’s testimony that what happened took place without her consent is capable of being corroborative "in a material respect" and may also increase the likelihood that other parts of her evidence are reliable. The court also held that it is not necessary for corroborative evidence to identify any particular offender, and evidence of a complainant's distressed condition may be capable of corroborating her account of violent treatment on either or both of two distinct but proximate episodes or instances.

Orders