R v NF - [2023] QCA 208

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v NF [2023] QCA 208

PARTIES:

R
v
NF
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 178 of 2020
DC No 594 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 30 July 2020; Date of Sentence: 5 August 2020 (Chief Judge O’Brien)

DELIVERED ON:

27 October 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 September 2023

JUDGES:

Boddice JA and Burns and Ryan JJ

ORDERS:

1. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction is refused.

2. Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was convicted after a trial without a jury of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 12 as well as a range of associated sexual and other offending against the same complainant – where the applicant sought an extension of time in which to appeal against his convictions – whether there was sufficient merit in the proposed grounds of appeal to warrant an extension of time

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the applicant was convicted after a trial without a jury of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 12 as well as a range of associated sexual and other offending against the same complainant – whether the convictions, or any of them, were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence – where the evidence comprising the Crown case was primarily comprised of the complainant’s pre-recorded oral testimony but was supported in critical respects by scientific evidence as well as by evidence from various witnesses including preliminary complaint witnesses –whether on an independent assessment of the record as a whole, it was open to the trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant’s guilt of each of the offences for which he was convicted – whether there existed inconsistencies, discrepancies or other inadequacy which, in light of the other evidence in the case, the judge ought nonetheless to have entertained reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL – where the applicant was convicted after a trial without a jury of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 12 as well as a range of associated sexual and other offending against the same complainant – where the applicant complained that he did not receive a fair trial because he had not been competently represented – whether there was anything in the conduct of the trial on the applicant’s behalf that could be said to have…

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 NF

Details

AGLC: R v NF [2023] QCA 208
Case: [2023] QCA 208
Decision Date: 27 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, NF, appealed against his conviction and sentence following a trial without a jury, where he was found guilty of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 12 and associated offences against the same complainant. The primary legal issues were whether the applicant's appeal against conviction should be extended in time, whether the convictions were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, whether the applicant's legal representation was competent, and whether fresh evidence could be considered on appeal against the sentence.

The court found that the proposed grounds of appeal did not have sufficient merit to warrant an extension of time. It was determined that the trial judge was open to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt based on the evidence, which included the complainant's pre-recorded testimony, scientific evidence, and witness statements. The court found no inconsistency or inadequacy in the evidence that would have led a reasonable judge to entertain doubt about the applicant's guilt. Furthermore, the court held that there was no indication that the conduct of the defence counsel was deficient in any way that could have produced injustice. Finally, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence, noting that the applicant had not provided any details about the fresh evidence and had not demonstrated that it was unavailable or could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and to refuse leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction is refused.

2. Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

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 NF [2023] QCA 208
PARTIES:	R v NF (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 178 of 2020 DC No 594 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction) Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 30 July 2020; Date of Sentence: 5 August 2020 (Chief Judge O’Brien)
DELIVERED ON:	27 October 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 September 2023
JUDGES:	Boddice JA and Burns and Ryan JJ
ORDERS:	1. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction is refused. 2. Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was convicted after a trial without a jury of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 12 as well as a range of associated sexual and other offending against the same complainant – where the applicant sought an extension of time in which to appeal against his convictions – whether there was sufficient merit in the proposed grounds of appeal to warrant an extension of time CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the applicant was convicted after a trial without a jury of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 12 as well as a range of associated sexual and other offending against the same complainant – whether the convictions, or any of them, were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence – where the evidence comprising the Crown case was primarily comprised of the complainant’s pre-recorded oral testimony but was supported in critical respects by scientific evidence as well as by evidence from various witnesses including preliminary complaint witnesses –whether on an independent assessment of the record as a whole, it was open to the trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant’s guilt of each of the offences for which he was convicted – whether there existed inconsistencies, discrepancies or other inadequacy which, in light of the other evidence in the case, the judge ought nonetheless to have entertained reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL – where the applicant was convicted after a trial without a jury of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 12 as well as a range of associated sexual and other offending against the same complainant – where the applicant complained that he did not receive a fair trial because he had not been competently represented – whether there was anything in the conduct of the trial on the applicant’s behalf that could be said to have…