R v McCann - [2009] QCA 289

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v McCann [2009] QCA 289

PARTIES:

R
v
McCANN, Steven John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 47 of 2009
DC No 41 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

29 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 September 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURIES – SUMMING UP – GENERALLY – where appellant convicted of four counts of rape – where appellant initially denied having sex with complainant and attending her premises – where the trial judge dealt with the question of lies in summing up – whether direction on the issue of lies adequate

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC for the appellant
G P Cash for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Cullinane J's reasons for dismissing this appeal.

As Cullinane J explains, the trial judge properly directed the jury that a lie told by the appellant out of a concern to conceal the truth of his sexual relations with the complainant from his girlfriend or from members of his family could not amount to evidence against him.[1] In addition to those specific directions, the judge made these further observations in summarising the defence case for the jury shortly before they retired to consider their verdict:

“In relation to the lies told by the defendant, [defence counsel] argued that people often lie for many reasons other than consciousness of guilt. He reminded you of the circumstances in which the defendant told those lies, including the fact that he was an unsophisticated young man; he had just been wakened up; he had been drinking heavily the previous night; and he was initially spoken to at his parent's home in the presence of his mother. … [defence counsel] argued, in effect, that you would not be satisfied the defendant lied out of a consciousness of guilt but rather, perhaps, out of panic or fear.”

[1]Set out in Cullinane J's reasons at [23].

Defence counsel made no application for any redirection on this aspect of the judge's directions to the jury. In context, the judge's directions appropriately met the requirements of Edwards v The Queen[2] and Zoneff v The Queen.[3]
[2](1993) 178 CLR 193 at 210-211.
[3](2000) 200 CLR 234 at 244.

FRASER JA: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Cullinane J.

CULLINANE J: The appellant was convicted on 10 February 2009 at the District Court in Rockhampton on four counts of rape.

The relevant events occurred…

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 McCann

Details

AGLC: R v McCann [2009] QCA 289
Case: [2009] QCA 289
Decision Date: 29 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McCann involved an appellant convicted of four counts of rape, appealing against his conviction. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's summing up, particularly the direction given on the issue of lies, was adequate. The appellant initially denied having sex with the complainant and attending her premises. During the trial, the issue of lies arose, and the trial judge addressed this matter in the summing up to the jury. The appellant argued that the judge's direction was inadequate, potentially impacting the jury's understanding and application of the evidence.

The court was required to determine if the trial judge's direction adequately covered the issue of lies, and whether this affected the jury's ability to properly consider the evidence. The court considered the principles of summing up and whether the judge's direction was clear, sufficient, and aligned with legal precedents. The court examined the context in which the lies were discussed and whether the judge's explanation was appropriate and comprehensible to the jury.

After thorough consideration, the court found that the trial judge's direction on the issue of lies was adequate. The court held that the summing up provided sufficient guidance to the jury, allowing them to properly consider the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. The court was satisfied that the trial judge appropriately balanced the issue of lies within the context of the trial, and that this did not prejudice the appellant's case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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 McCann [2009] QCA 289
PARTIES:	R v McCANN, Steven John (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 47 of 2009 DC No 41 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	29 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 September 2009
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Cullinane J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURIES – SUMMING UP – GENERALLY – where appellant convicted of four counts of rape – where appellant initially denied having sex with complainant and attending her premises – where the trial judge dealt with the question of lies in summing up – whether direction on the issue of lies adequate Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28, cited
COUNSEL:	A J Glynn SC for the appellant G P Cash for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Howden Saggers Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent