R v McGuire - [2013] QCA 290

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v McGuire [2013] QCA 290

PARTIES:

R
v
McGUIRE, Geoffrey
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 293 of 2012
DC No 169 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 July 2013

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty of rape – where a group including the appellant and the complainant had stayed overnight at the same apartment – where the complainant had not met the appellant previously and had only interacted with him briefly – where the complainant gave evidence that she suffered from medical problems which made sexual intercourse uncomfortable and that she had abstained from sexual intercourse for several months – where there were inconsistencies in the accounts given by the various witnesses called at trial – where the appellant contended that the evidence of a lack of consent was insufficient to allow a jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt – where the respondent argued that the evidence before the jury was capable of countering any inference that the complainant had consented – whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant argued that evidence given by the complainant at trial relating to her capacity to consent was an inadmissible opinion – where no objection was taken to that evidence at trial – whether the complainant’s evidence was admissible

Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352; [2011] HCA 36, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

K Prskalo for the appellant
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: After a three day trial in the District Court in October 2012 the appellant was found guilty by a jury of rape. The appellant has appealed against conviction on the ground that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence. Under that ground of appeal the question for the Court is whether upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty.[1] In applying that test, the Court must make “an independent assessment of…

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 McGuire

Details

AGLC: R v McGuire [2013] QCA 290
Case: [2013] QCA 290
Decision Date: 4 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v McGuire, the appellant was convicted of the crime of rape. The case involved a situation where the appellant and the complainant, along with others, had spent the night at the same apartment. The complainant had not known the appellant prior to the incident and had only interacted with him briefly. She testified that she suffered from medical conditions that made sexual intercourse uncomfortable, and she had not engaged in sexual activity for several months prior to the incident. The accounts provided by various witnesses at the trial were inconsistent. The appellant argued that the evidence of a lack of consent was insufficient to satisfy a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. Conversely, the respondent maintained that the evidence presented was capable of allowing the jury to conclude that the complainant had not consented.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable considering the evidence. The court needed to determine if the jury's decision to convict the appellant was justified based on the evidence presented at trial. The appellant also raised issues about the admissibility of certain evidence provided by the complainant regarding her capacity to consent, arguing that this evidence was an inadmissible opinion. However, as no objection was raised to this evidence during the trial, the court needed to determine whether this evidence should have been admitted in the first place.

The court found that despite the inconsistencies in the witness accounts and the appellant’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a lack of consent, the jury’s verdict was supported by the evidence. The court held that the evidence before the jury was capable of countering any inference that the complainant had consented. Therefore, the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. As for the admissibility of the complainant's evidence on her capacity to consent, the court ruled that no error occurred as no objection was made at trial. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the original verdict was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 McGuire [2013] QCA 290
PARTIES:	R v McGUIRE, Geoffrey (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 293 of 2012 DC No 169 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	4 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 July 2013
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty of rape – where a group including the appellant and the complainant had stayed overnight at the same apartment – where the complainant had not met the appellant previously and had only interacted with him briefly – where the complainant gave evidence that she suffered from medical problems which made sexual intercourse uncomfortable and that she had abstained from sexual intercourse for several months – where there were inconsistencies in the accounts given by the various witnesses called at trial – where the appellant contended that the evidence of a lack of consent was insufficient to allow a jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt – where the respondent argued that the evidence before the jury was capable of countering any inference that the complainant had consented – whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant argued that evidence given by the complainant at trial relating to her capacity to consent was an inadmissible opinion – where no objection was taken to that evidence at trial – whether the complainant’s evidence was admissible Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352; [2011] HCA 36, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	K Prskalo for the appellant P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent