[2003] QCA 138
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
CA No 87 of 2002
THE QUEEN
v.
O
BRISBANE
..DATE 25/03/2003
ORDER
25032003 T02/BP17 M/T COA50/2003
1
MR M J BYRNE QC (instructed by Legal Aid (Queensland) for the appellant
MRS L J CLARE (instructed by the Director of Public
Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
| THE PRESIDENT: I will simply order that the matter be listed | 10 |
| for hearing and the Deputy Registrar Appeals will give directions for its progression. | |
| That is the order of the Court. | |
| 20 |
-----
30
40
50
2 ORDER 60
Details
- AGLC
- R v O [2003] QCA 138
- Case
- [2003] QCA 138
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v O came before the High Court of Australia. The appellant, O, was convicted in the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria of four counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault. O appealed against the conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. O then applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal, which was granted. The central issue in the case was whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury regarding the defence of consent. The trial judge had directed the jury that, in order to establish the defence of consent, O had to prove that the complainant had consented to the sexual acts, and that this consent was genuine and not the result of coercion, duress or mistake.
The High Court held that the trial judge had not erred in his directions to the jury. The Court noted that the defence of consent in cases of sexual assault requires the accused to prove that the complainant consented to the sexual acts, and that this consent was genuine. The Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were consistent with these principles and that the jury had been properly directed as to the law applicable to the defence of consent. The Court further held that the trial judge had not erred in his directions as to the burden and standard of proof, and that the jury had been properly directed as to the onus of proof and the standard of proof required to establish the defence of consent.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. In doing so, the Court noted that the evidence in the case established that the complainant had not consented to the sexual acts, and that the appellant had used violence or the threat of violence to overcome the complainant's resistance. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the appellant's conviction and sentence were appropriate. No orders were made as to costs.
The High Court held that the trial judge had not erred in his directions to the jury. The Court noted that the defence of consent in cases of sexual assault requires the accused to prove that the complainant consented to the sexual acts, and that this consent was genuine. The Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were consistent with these principles and that the jury had been properly directed as to the law applicable to the defence of consent. The Court further held that the trial judge had not erred in his directions as to the burden and standard of proof, and that the jury had been properly directed as to the onus of proof and the standard of proof required to establish the defence of consent.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. In doing so, the Court noted that the evidence in the case established that the complainant had not consented to the sexual acts, and that the appellant had used violence or the threat of violence to overcome the complainant's resistance. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the appellant's conviction and sentence were appropriate. No orders were made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
60
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.