R v Oaa - [2024] QCA 70

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v OAA [2024] QCA 70

PARTIES:
R

v OAA

(appellant)

FILENO/S:
CA No 130 of 2022

DC No 245 of 2022

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 2 June 2022 (Rafter SC DCJ)

DELIVEREDON: 3 May 2024

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 27 October 2023

JUDGES: Mullins P, Boddice JA and Williams J

ORDER: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT

VERDICTS – where the appellant was tried before a jury on an indictment, containing 21 counts, all relating to the same complainant – where the prosecution discontinued five counts – where the appellant was acquitted of two counts – where the jury failed to reach a verdict on eight counts and the circumstance of aggravation for the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where the appellant was convicted of five counts of indecent treatment of a child and one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where the appellant argues the acquittals depended on the jury’s inherent concern about the complainant’s credibility – where the acquittals on two counts were explicable by the complainant’s evidence relating specifically to those two counts and the directions given by the trial judge that the jury could convict only if the complainant’s evidence related to the specific occasion particularised in the charge – whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence as a result of inconsistent verdicts

MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996]

HCA 35, cited

R v DAL [2005] QCA 281, cited

COUNSEL: M J Jackson for the appellant M A Green for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MULLINS P: The appellant was tried in the District Court before a jury on an indictment comprising 21 counts, all relating to the same complainant, and particularised as being committed over the period between 1 July 1987 and 21 November 1994. When the complainant did not give evidence in respect of the conduct that was particularised for counts 7, 9, 10 and 20, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi in respect of those four counts and the appellant was discharged on those counts. The prosecution also entered a nolle prosequi in respect of count 8 as there was a discrepancy between the date of the certificate (exhibit 5) which the complainant linked to the offending and the dates particularised in the count. The appellant was discharged in respect of counts 7-10 and 20.
The jury was therefore asked to return verdicts on six counts of indecent treatment of a girl under 16, under 14 (counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 12), one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with a circumstance of aggravation (count 14), three counts of attempted rape (counts 2, 5 and 13), one…

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 Oaa

Details

AGLC: R v Oaa [2024] QCA 70
Case: [2024] QCA 70
Decision Date: 3 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was tried in the Supreme Court of Western Australia on an indictment containing 21 counts, all relating to the same complainant. The prosecution discontinued five counts and the appellant was acquitted of two counts. The jury failed to reach a verdict on eight counts, and the circumstance of aggravation for the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The appellant was convicted on five counts of indecent treatment of a child and one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The appellant appealed against the convictions, arguing that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence due to the inconsistent verdicts.

The court was required to determine whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The appellant argued that the acquittals depended on the jury’s inherent concern about the complainant’s credibility. The court had to consider whether the acquittals on two counts were explicable by the complainant’s evidence relating specifically to those two counts and the directions given by the trial judge that the jury could convict only if the complainant’s evidence related to the specific occasion particularised in the charge. The court also had to consider whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence as a result of inconsistent verdicts.

The court dismissed the appeal. The court found that the acquittals on two counts were explicable by the complainant’s evidence relating specifically to those two counts and the directions given by the trial judge. The court found that the verdicts of guilty were not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The court found that the jury had considered the evidence and had made findings of fact that were open to them on the evidence. The court found that the verdicts of guilty were not so unreasonable as to amount to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed. The convictions 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v OAA [2024] QCA 70
PARTIES:	R v OAA (appellant)
FILENO/S:	CA No 130 of 2022 DC No 245 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 2 June 2022 (Rafter SC DCJ)
DELIVEREDON:	3 May 2024
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	27 October 2023
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Boddice JA and Williams J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was tried before a jury on an indictment, containing 21 counts, all relating to the same complainant – where the prosecution discontinued five counts – where the appellant was acquitted of two counts – where the jury failed to reach a verdict on eight counts and the circumstance of aggravation for the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where the appellant was convicted of five counts of indecent treatment of a child and one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – where the appellant argues the acquittals depended on the jury’s inherent concern about the complainant’s credibility – where the acquittals on two counts were explicable by the complainant’s evidence relating specifically to those two counts and the directions given by the trial judge that the jury could convict only if the complainant’s evidence related to the specific occasion particularised in the charge – whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence as a result of inconsistent verdicts MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited R v DAL [2005] QCA 281, cited