R v MCI

Case [2016] QCA 312

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MCI [2016] QCA 312

PARTIES:

R
v
MCI
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 106 of 2016
DC No 1736 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 8 April 2016

DELIVERED ON:

25 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 October 2016

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1.   The application for leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

2.   The appeal is allowed.

3.   The convictions are set aside.

4.   A retrial is ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12, under care, and one count of rape – where the appellant contends there was no corroboration of the complainant’s evidence, there were inconsistencies between the complainant’s account and the preliminary complaint witnesses’s accounts, and there was a long delay – where the jury were entitled to accept the complainant’s account as reliable beyond reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where a prosecution witness gave inadmissible evidence in cross-examination about an earlier allegation against the appellant of sexually abusing a child – where the trial judge refused to discharge the jury and gave a direction that the jury should disregard the inadmissible evidence – where the inadmissible evidence was highly prejudicial – whether the refusal to discharge the jury occasioned a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of  indecent treatment of a child under 12, under care, and one count of rape – where the appellant contends that all alleged counts occurred serially on the same day and it was illogical for the jury to be satisfied that some counts occurred while others did not – where the quality of evidence in relation to each count varied – where the evidence of preliminary complaint witnesses supported some counts but not others – whether the verdicts were inconsistent

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – FURTHER EVIDENCE – AVAILABILITY AT TRIAL, MATERIALITY AND COGENCY – where the appellant seeks leave to adduce further evidence about when the dress the complainant alleged she was wearing at the time of the offence was purchased, the complainant’s victim impact statement, and the complainant’s medical history – where the further evidence, except for the complainant’s victim impact statement, was either available at trial or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence – where there was no adequate explanation for why…

Continue reading R v MCI

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MCI [2016] QCA 312
Case
[2016] QCA 312
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, MCI, was convicted on three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12, under care, and one count of rape. MCI appealed against the convictions, arguing that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable, that there was a miscarriage of justice due to inadmissible evidence presented by the prosecution, and that there were inconsistent verdicts. The appeal also sought leave to adduce further evidence that was either available at trial or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

The court was required to consider whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence, whether the refusal to discharge the jury due to inadmissible evidence led to a miscarriage of justice, whether the verdicts were inconsistent, and whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence.

The court found that the jury was entitled to accept the complainant’s account as reliable beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial judge's direction to disregard the inadmissible evidence was sufficient to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the appellant's argument that the verdicts were inconsistent was not compelling as the quality of evidence varied for each count, and the preliminary complaint witnesses supported some counts but not others. However, the court granted leave to adduce further evidence concerning the timing of the purchase of the dress the complainant alleged she was wearing at the time of the offence, the complainant’s victim impact statement, and the complainant’s medical history, as it was material and cogent.

The court dismissed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a retrial.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The convictions are set aside.

4. A retrial is ordered.

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.