R v MEC

Case [2024] QCA 203

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MEC [2024] QCA 203

PARTIES:

R
v
MEC
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 57 of 2023
DC No 2292 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction and Sentence 13 March 2023 (Farr SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

1 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 October 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Flanagan JA and Vaughan AJA

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted after trial before a jury of three counts of indecent treatment with circumstances of aggravation and seven counts of rape – where the complainant for each count was the appellant’s daughter – where there were discrepancies in the complainant’s evidence – where there were inconsistencies between the complainant’s evidence and the evidence of the same matters that were the subject of preliminary complaint by the complainant to other persons – where the complainant disclosed some uncharged acts for the first time during her evidence – where the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence were traversed in the addresses to the jury of the prosecutor and defence counsel – whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted after trial before a jury of three counts of indecent treatment with circumstances of aggravation and seven counts of rape – where the complainant for each count was the appellant’s daughter – where the prosecution case depended on the complainant’s evidence of the offending conduct – where there were jury notes asking for clarification on the meaning of beyond reasonable doubt and whether it is a matter of law or a matter of opinion whether the complainant’s credibility constitutes reasonable doubt – whether the judge was bound to redirect the jury that they needed to be satisfied of the truthfulness, reliability and honesty of the complainant’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt, before they would convict on any count – whether the trial judge appropriately redirected the jury in the circumstances of the trial on the process of assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence and then considering whether, upon the complainant’s evidence accepted by the jury, the prosecution had proved the relevant charges beyond reasonable doubt – whether there was a miscarriage of justice as a result of the trial judge’s redirections

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was convicted after trial before a jury of three counts of indecent treatment with circumstances of aggravation and seven counts of rape – where the complainant was the…

Continue reading R v MEC

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MEC [2024] QCA 203
Case
[2024] QCA 203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v MEC, the appellant was convicted after a trial before a jury of three counts of indecent treatment with circumstances of aggravation and seven counts of rape, with the complainant in each case being the appellant's daughter. The appellant appealed against the conviction on several grounds, including the contention that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and that there was a miscarriage of justice due to alleged misdirections or non-directions by the trial judge in relation to the process of assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The court considered the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and whether these were sufficient to render the verdict unreasonable or insupportable. The court also examined whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the trial judge's handling of the jury's notes seeking clarification on the meaning of beyond reasonable doubt and the assessment of the complainant's credibility. The court held that while there were discrepancies and inconsistencies, they were addressed in the trial and did not render the verdict unreasonable. The court also found that the trial judge appropriately redirected the jury in the circumstances of the trial.

The appellant also appealed against the sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offending, which commenced when the complainant was six years old and continued over a lengthy period of about six years. The court held that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The issue at the trial was therefore whether the jury would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the incidents the subject of each of the counts occurred as alleged by the complainant.The complainant’s evidence The complainant’s first memory of being sexually abused by her father was when she was six years old and woke up with his hand down her pants (count 1). It was skin on skin contact. The complainant did not recall any other incidents at that house. It was an admitted fact that the family had moved on 29 October 2008 to another suburb where they remained for about three and one-half years. The complainant remembered her first bedroom at that house had a wooden toy box. She was in the bedroom and her father came in and asked her to sit on top of the toy box and take her pants down. He turned her around and tried to penetrate her vagina with his penis which really hurt (count 2). She felt a burning sensation. She could not remember feeling his penis go inside her vagina but remembered that it hurt a lot. He turned her around and asked her to put her mouth on top of his penis which she did and he ejaculated into her mouth and told her to swallow it (count 3). (The complainant’s mother’s evidence was to the effect that the complainant had a toy box in her bedroom at this house.) The appellant told the complainant that this was normal conduct as that was what fathers and daughters did, it was their secret and not to tell anyone. The complainant believed the appellant. On another occasion at the same house, the appellant called the complainant into his bedroom where he was lying on the bed and asked her to pull her pants down. He picked her up and put her on the bed in between his legs and asked her to put her mouth on his penis which she did (count 4). He also asked her to put her hand on his penis and move her hand at the same time, as he had his hand on her head, forcing her head up and down on his penis. She remembered gagging and it hurt her throat. Again, at the same house but when the complainant had moved to a different bedroom, she was in her bedroom on the bed when her father came in, pulled his pants down and asked her to put her mouth on his penis (count 5). He put his hand on the back of her head and moved her head up and down on his penis. (The complainant’s mother confirmed that the complainant did move bedrooms in this house.) In the backyard of the same house, there was a caravan. The complainant was inside the caravan with the appellant. She was sitting on the bed, when he came over and asked her to perform oral sex on him which she did. (This was an uncharged act.) The complainant had remembered that incident only when she spoke to the prosecutor the previous day. The complainant explained that when she was shown a photo of the backyard and the corner where the caravan used to be, it triggered that memory. The complainant gave evidence of other uncharged acts that happened when she lived at this house. Her father used to take her for a drive in his four wheel drive vehicle at nighttime and park in bushland that was like a national park, push his seat back and the complainant would get in between his legs and perform oral sex. The complainant identified the national park where these incidents occurred from the photograph that was tendered as exhibit 9.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.