R v Martin

[1992] QCA 205

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 205

FITZGERALD P
DAVIES J A

DEMACK J

CA No 41 of 1992

THE QUEEN

v.

DOUGLAS HAIG MARTIN	(Appellant)
BRISBANE
.. DATE 1/6/92 JUDGMENT

1

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The appellant is appealing against his

conviction in the District Court at Brisbane on 21 January

1992 for four offences, one of sodomy and three of indecent

dealing. All four charges related to a male child who was 13

years old at the time and 15 years of age when he gave

evidence at the appellant’s trial.

The appellant contends that the jury’s verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. Apart from comparatively formal evidence from a police officer, the complainant was the only witness.

His evidence was wholly uncorroborated, further he is

intellectually impaired. The complainant's evidence was that

he and the appellant lived at a caravan park and they first

met at a nearby laundromat. On that occasion the appellant
mentioned to the complainant that the appellant liked a lot of
sex. Not long afterwards the complainant was passing the
appellant's caravan when he was taken inside and the offence
of sodomy occurred. Indecent dealings occurred on subsequent
occasions and also took place in the appellant's caravan.

According to the complainant, he was given small sums of money

when these incidents occurred.

In addition to the circumstances that the complainant is an

intellectually impaired child and that his evidence is

uncorroborated, the appellant relies upon inconsistencies in

the complainant's testimony and that his evidence in chief was

2

lacking in detail. However, the inconsistencies relate to

relatively peripheral aspects of the events of which the
complainant described. As was conceded before this Court,
none of the inconsistencies are particularly startling. There

is nothing inherently improbable in the complainant's

evidence, even if the sodomy preceded the less serious conduct
which formed the basis for the later series of indecent

dealings.

A perusal of the complainant's evidence provides no basis for

a conclusion that a reasonable jury could not accept it as
credible, and on that basis find the appellant guilty of the

offences of which he was charged.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

DEMACK J: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The appeal is dismissed.

_____

3