R v McLeod - [2011] QCA 373

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v McLeod [2011] QCA 373

PARTIES:

R
v
McLEOD, Matthew Daniel
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 278 of 2011
DC No 9 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Emerald

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 November 2011

JUDGES:

Muir, Chesterman and White JJA
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 – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of one count of unlawfully permitting himself to be dealt with by the complainant who was under 16 years – where the appellant was acquitted of two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge and one count of indecently dealing with the same complainant – where identification was in issue on the trial – where the complainant’s evidence in respect of the permitting offence was corroborated by the evidence of the complainant’s friend – whether the verdicts of acquittal were inconsistent with the guilty verdict

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant submitted that the verdict depended solely on identification of the appellant by the complainant and her friend – where the appellant argued that the identification evidence was deficient and could not support a guilty verdict – whether the guilty verdict in respect of the permitting offence was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence as a whole

MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, considered
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, considered
R v Kirkman (1987) 44 SASR 591, considered
R v McMullen[2011] QCA 153, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley SC for the appellant
S P Vasta for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Anne Murray & Co Solicitors for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: Introduction After a trial in the District Court at Emerald the appellant was convicted of one count of unlawfully permitting himself to be dealt with by a child under 16 years on a date unknown between 1 June 2009 and 1 January 2010 (count 3). He was acquitted of two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of the same complainant between the same dates (counts 1 and 4) and of another count of unlawfully and indecently dealing with the same complainant between the same dates (count 2). The appellant appeals on grounds that the verdict on count 3 is inconsistent and irreconcilable with the verdicts on the other counts and that the conviction is otherwise unreasonable, unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Counts 1 and 4 were each particularised as sexual intercourse at the appellant’s home in Bluff. Counts 2 and 3 were particularised, respectively, as the insertion by the appellant of his finger or…

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 McLeod

Details

AGLC: R v McLeod [2011] QCA 373
Case: [2011] QCA 373
Decision Date: 16 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v McLeod, the appellant was convicted of one count of unlawfully permitting himself to be dealt with by a person under 16 years, while being acquitted of two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge and one count of indecently dealing with the same complainant. The matter was brought before the court on appeal, challenging the conviction and seeking a new trial based on the alleged inconsistency of the verdicts.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the verdicts of acquittal on the more serious charges were inconsistent with the guilty verdict on the permitting offence. The appellant argued that the verdict depended solely on the identification of the appellant by the complainant and her friend, and that the identification evidence was deficient and could not support a guilty verdict. The court had to determine whether the guilty verdict in respect of the permitting offence was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the entire evidence presented.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the identification evidence, though not perfect, was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. The court emphasised that the acquittals on the more serious charges did not necessarily render the permitting offence conviction inconsistent, as the jury could have found the evidence insufficient to establish the more serious charges beyond reasonable doubt, while still being satisfied of the permitting offence. The appeal against the conviction was therefore dismissed.

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 McLeod [2011] QCA 373
PARTIES:	R v McLEOD, Matthew Daniel (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 278 of 2011 DC No 9 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Emerald
DELIVERED ON:	16 December 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 November 2011
JUDGES:	Muir, Chesterman and White JJA 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 – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted of one count of unlawfully permitting himself to be dealt with by the complainant who was under 16 years – where the appellant was acquitted of two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge and one count of indecently dealing with the same complainant – where identification was in issue on the trial – where the complainant’s evidence in respect of the permitting offence was corroborated by the evidence of the complainant’s friend – whether the verdicts of acquittal were inconsistent with the guilty verdict CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant submitted that the verdict depended solely on identification of the appellant by the complainant and her friend – where the appellant argued that the identification evidence was deficient and could not support a guilty verdict – whether the guilty verdict in respect of the permitting offence was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence as a whole MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, considered MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, considered R v Kirkman (1987) 44 SASR 591, considered R v McMullen[2011] QCA 153, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Copley SC for the appellant S P Vasta for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Anne Murray & Co Solicitors for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent