R v Martin

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 205

FITZGERALD P
DAVIES J A

DEMACK J

CA No 41 of 1992

THE QUEEN

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

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

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.

_____

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case was brought by Douglas Haig Martin, who was challenging his conviction for four offences including sodomy and indecent dealing involving a male child. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal in Queensland, with Fitzgerald P, Davies JA, and Demack J presiding. The central issue before the court was whether the jury's verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory given the nature of the evidence presented, particularly the complainant's uncorroborated testimony and his intellectual impairment. The complainant's evidence, though largely uncorroborated, detailed incidents of abuse that occurred over time, and the court had to assess the credibility of this evidence in light of the inconsistencies presented by the appellant.

The court examined the evidence and found that the inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony were not significant enough to undermine the overall credibility of his account. The court also noted that the nature of the offences and the relationship between the complainant and the appellant did not render the complainant's testimony inherently improbable. The court concluded that a reasonable jury, properly directed, could find the appellant guilty based on the complainant's evidence alone. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the court found no basis to conclude that the jury could not accept the complainant's evidence as credible.

The unanimous decision of the court was that the appeal should be dismissed, affirming the conviction of the appellant for the four offences. The reasoning centred on the acceptance of the complainant's evidence as credible and sufficient for a guilty verdict, despite the lack of corroboration and the complainant's intellectual impairment. The court's final order was the dismissal of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established