R v N - [2001] QCA 70

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v N [2001] QCA 70

PARTIES:

R
v
N
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 215 of 2000
DC No 47 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

6 March 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 March 2001

JUDGE:

McMurdo P, Williams JA, Wilson J
Joint reasons for judgment of Williams JA and Wilson J, separate reasons of McMurdo P, concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.
3. Appeal against sentence allowed.
4. Set aside sentence of 15 months imprisonment and in lieu thereof impose a sentence of six months imprisonment.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where evidence deemed not prejudicial and of probative value

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where incident an isolated one – where complainant and accused both clothed – where reference to other cases reveals the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v A [2000] QCA 520; CA No 118 of 2000, 19 December 2000, considered
R v Kemp [1997] 1 Qd R 383, considered
R v Kenward [2000] QCA 482; CA No 100 of 2000, 24 November 2000, considered
R v LSS [2000] 1 Qd R 546, considered

COUNSEL:

T D Martin SC for applicant/appellant
B G Campbell for respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: I have read the reasons for judgment of Williams JA and Wilson J and agree that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed for the reasons they have given. I wish only to add the following by way of emphasis.

It would have been preferable in this case if the jury had been specifically and clearly warned by the learned trial judge that the complainant's evidence of uncharged acts did not support the occurrence of the specific events charged in the indictment and that such evidence should not be substituted for the evidence of the specific acts. See R v Kemp;[1] R v LSS[2] and R v A.[3] Nonetheless, as Williams JA and Wilson J have demonstrated in their reasons, the judge's summing-up when looked at as a whole adequately instructed the jury as to the limits of the relevance of the relationship evidence.
[1][1997] 1 Qd R…

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 N

Details

AGLC: R v N [2001] QCA 70
Case: [2001] QCA 70
Decision Date: 6 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v N involved the appellant who was convicted of sexual assault. The appeal was brought before the court with several grounds, including the improper admission or rejection of evidence and alleged misdirection or non-direction by the trial judge. The court had to determine whether the evidence was properly assessed and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and fair.

The legal issues centred around the admissibility of certain evidence and whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury. The appellant argued that certain evidence was prejudicial and should not have been admitted, while also claiming that the judge misdirected the jury, impacting the fairness of the trial. The court examined the evidence in question and assessed whether its admission or exclusion could have influenced the jury's verdict. Additionally, the court reviewed the trial judge's instructions to determine if they accurately reflected the law and were clear enough for the jury to properly consider the case.

The court found that the evidence in question, while potentially prejudicial, was of significant probative value and did not warrant exclusion. The court further concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and correctly aligned with legal standards. Therefore, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. However, regarding the sentence, the court found that the original sentence was manifestly excessive given the nature of the offence and the specific circumstances, including that it was an isolated incident and both parties were clothed. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to six months imprisonment.

In summary, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against the sentence was allowed, resulting in a reduction from 15 months to six months imprisonment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

3. Appeal against sentence allowed.

4. Set aside sentence of 15 months imprisonment and in lieu thereof impose a sentence of six months imprisonment.

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 N [2001] QCA 70
PARTIES:	R v N (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 215 of 2000 DC No 47 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maryborough
DELIVERED ON:	6 March 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 March 2001
JUDGE:	McMurdo P, Williams JA, Wilson J Joint reasons for judgment of Williams JA and Wilson J, separate reasons of McMurdo P, concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. 3. Appeal against sentence allowed. 4. Set aside sentence of 15 months imprisonment and in lieu thereof impose a sentence of six months imprisonment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where evidence deemed not prejudicial and of probative value CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON DIRECTION – WHERE GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH VERDICT – PARTICULAR CASES – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where incident an isolated one – where complainant and accused both clothed – where reference to other cases reveals the sentence was manifestly excessive R v A [2000] QCA 520; CA No 118 of 2000, 19 December 2000, considered R v Kemp [1997] 1 Qd R 383, considered R v Kenward [2000] QCA 482; CA No 100 of 2000, 24 November 2000, considered R v LSS [2000] 1 Qd R 546, considered
COUNSEL:	T D Martin SC for applicant/appellant B G Campbell for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent