R v MCC - [2014] QCA 253

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MCC [2014] QCA 253

PARTIES:

R
v
MCC
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 225 of 2013
DC No 210 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

10 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 June 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against conviction allowed.

2.   Verdicts of guilty set aside.

3.   Verdicts of acquittal entered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was charged with four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care – where the complainant was the then eight year old daughter of the appellant's de facto partner – where the Crown did not proceed on count 1 – where the appellant was found guilty on counts 2 and 4 and not guilty on count 3 – where the complainant's evidence was inconsistent with other evidence – where the complainant's brother gave evidence that did not support the complainant's evidence on any particular count – whether the learned trial judge erred in informing the jury that this evidence was preliminary complaint evidence – whether the appeal against conviction should be allowed

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was found guilty on counts 2 and 4 and not guilty on count 3 – where count 3 was the only alleged overtly sexual act – whether the guilty verdicts on counts 2 and 4 were inconsistent and could not logically be reconciled with the not guilty verdict on count 3

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where the complainant’s evidence consisted of prerecorded evidence and a recorded interview with police – where the jury were granted their request to watch the complainant’s evidence for a second time – where the learned trial judge, after replaying that evidence, did not direct the jury not to give the complainant's evidence undue weight by virtue of its repetition – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld), s 4A
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A, s 21AK

R v FAE[2014] QCA 69, cited
R v GAO[2012] QCA 54, cited
R v H [1999] 2 Qd R 283; [1998] QCA 348, cited
R v NM [2013] 1 Qd R 374; [2012] QCA 173, cited
R v Riera[2011] QCA 77, cited
R v SCG[2014] QCA 118, cited

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the appellant
J Robson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET…

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 MCC

Details

AGLC: R v MCC [2014] QCA 253
Case: [2014] QCA 253
Decision Date: 10 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v MCC, the appellant was charged with four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years of age who was under his care. The complainant in this case was the then eight-year-old daughter of the appellant's de facto partner. The Crown did not proceed on count 1, but the appellant was found guilty on counts 2 and 4, and not guilty on count 3. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and that there was a misdirection and non-direction by the trial judge.

The legal issues before the court were whether the learned trial judge erred in informing the jury that the complainant's evidence was preliminary complaint evidence and whether the appeal against conviction should be allowed. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the verdicts on counts 2 and 4 were inconsistent and could not logically be reconciled with the not guilty verdict on count 3. The court also had to examine whether the trial judge's failure to direct the jury not to give undue weight to the complainant's evidence, which had been replayed for them, amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the verdicts on counts 2 and 4 were inconsistent and could not be logically reconciled with the not guilty verdict on count 3. The court also found that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury not to give undue weight to the complainant's evidence, which had been replayed for them, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court further held that the trial judge's direction to the jury that the complainant's evidence was preliminary complaint evidence was erroneous and had the potential to mislead the jury. As a result, the appeal against conviction was allowed, and the verdicts of guilty were set aside. Verdicts of acquittal were entered in their place.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that the appeal against conviction be allowed, the verdicts of guilty set aside, and verdicts of acquittal entered. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that the jury is not misled or given undue weight to certain evidence, particularly when it is replayed for them. It also emphasises the need for consistency in verdicts and the importance of proper directions to the jury.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction allowed.

2. Verdicts of guilty set aside.

3. Verdicts of acquittal entered.

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 MCC [2014] QCA 253
PARTIES:	R v MCC (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 225 of 2013 DC No 210 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	10 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 June 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and North J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction allowed. 2. Verdicts of guilty set aside. 3. Verdicts of acquittal entered.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was charged with four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care – where the complainant was the then eight year old daughter of the appellant's de facto partner – where the Crown did not proceed on count 1 – where the appellant was found guilty on counts 2 and 4 and not guilty on count 3 – where the complainant's evidence was inconsistent with other evidence – where the complainant's brother gave evidence that did not support the complainant's evidence on any particular count – whether the learned trial judge erred in informing the jury that this evidence was preliminary complaint evidence – whether the appeal against conviction should be allowed CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was found guilty on counts 2 and 4 and not guilty on count 3 – where count 3 was the only alleged overtly sexual act – whether the guilty verdicts on counts 2 and 4 were inconsistent and could not logically be reconciled with the not guilty verdict on count 3 CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – where the complainant’s evidence consisted of prerecorded evidence and a recorded interview with police – where the jury were granted their request to watch the complainant’s evidence for a second time – where the learned trial judge, after replaying that evidence, did not direct the jury not to give the complainant's evidence undue weight by virtue of its repetition – whether there was a miscarriage of justice Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld), s 4A Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A, s 21AK R v FAE[2014] QCA 69, cited R v GAO[2012] QCA 54, cited R v H [1999] 2 Qd R 283; [1998] QCA 348, cited R v NM [2013] 1 Qd R 374; [2012] QCA 173, cited R v Riera[2011] QCA 77, cited R v SCG[2014] QCA 118, cited
COUNSEL:	A W Collins for the appellant J Robson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent