R v MDP

Case [2023] QCA 134

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MDP [2023] QCA 134

PARTIES:

R
v
MDP
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 210 of 2021
DC No 485 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 6 August 2021 (Morzone KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

27 June 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 May 2023

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Morrison JA and Henry J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where the appellant was convicted at trial by a jury on charges of rape, indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care, maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and indecent treatment of a child under 16 under care – where the four grounds of appeal allege a miscarriage of justice, three founded on the trial judge’s directions and the fourth on alleged non-compliance with the rule in Browne v Dunn – where no miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the learned trial judge’s directions to the jury that occasions when the appellant had slapped the complainant on the bottom could be used as evidence of sexual interest by the appellant in the complainant – whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the trial judge’s failure to direct the jury in relation to an out-of-court statement by the appellant which the prosecution relied upon as constituting an admission of guilt – whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the alleged failure by the prosecution to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn – whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the trial judge’s directions to the jury that evidence of the complainant’s distressed condition at the time she made a preliminary complaint about the offending to her mother could be left to the jury as independent evidence supporting the complainant’s account

Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1997 (Qld), s 113
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132B
Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2003 (Qld), s 40

BBH v The Queen (2012) 245 CLR 499; [2012] HCA 9, distinguished
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51, cited
Gately v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 208; [2007] HCA 55, followed
GBF v The Queen (2020) 271 CLR 537; (2020) 384 ALR 569; [2020] HCA 40, followed
HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, considered
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60, cited
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; [1995] HCA 7, cited
R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658, cited
R v Flannery [1969] VR 586; [1969] VicRp 72, cited
R v May [1962] Qd R 456,…

Continue reading R v MDP

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MDP [2023] QCA 134
Case
[2023] QCA 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v MDP, the appellant sought an appeal against his conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted by a jury of several serious sexual offences involving a child under his care, including rape, indecent treatment of a child under 12 under care, maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, and indecent treatment of a child under 16 under care. The appeal grounds primarily argued that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to various alleged errors made by the trial judge and the prosecution.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding certain evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, the court examined whether the judge’s directions that instances of the appellant slapping the complainant could be considered as evidence of sexual interest were erroneous. Additionally, the court assessed whether the failure of the trial judge to direct the jury regarding an out-of-court statement made by the appellant, which the prosecution used as an admission of guilt, constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court also had to consider if there was a failure to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn, as well as whether the judge’s allowance of evidence about the complainant’s distressed state when she first reported the offences to her mother was appropriate.

After a detailed examination of the evidence and the law, the court concluded that none of the grounds for appeal had merit. The court found that the trial judge’s directions to the jury were within acceptable bounds and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The alleged non-compliance with the rule in Browne v Dunn was also found to be unfounded. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence 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

Ground 4 fails.Conclusion and Orders None of the appellant’s grounds having succeeded, I would order:Appeal dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.