R v Oldham - [1993] QCA 430

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 430

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 243 of 1993.

Brisbane

[R v. Oldham]

T H E Q U E E N
v.
KEVIN CHARLES OLDHAM

Appellant

________________________________________________________________

The President
Pincus J.A.
Thomas J.

________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 27/10/93
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
________________________________________________________________

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.
________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - rape - indecent dealing with a girl under 14 years - alleged offences occurred when the girl was aged between 8 and 12 - complaint not made until she was almost 19 - whether failure to complain made the verdict unsafe - whether complainant's evidence was so inconsistent as to make the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.
Counsel:	Mr A Rafter for the Appellant. Mr P Callaghan for the Crown.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Appellant. Director of Prosecutions for the Crown.
Hearing Date:	11 October 1993.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 243 of 1993.

Brisbane

Before

The President
Pincus J.A.
Thomas J.

[R v. Oldham]

T H E Q U E E N
v.
KEVIN CHARLES OLDHAM

Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 27/10/93.

The appellant appeals against his conviction of a number of offences in relation to a young girl born on 18 April 1973; he also asks for leave to appeal against sentence. There were two convictions of unlawfully and indecently dealing with her, and two of rape. The evidence included allegations of numerous other sexual dealings with the girl over a period of about four years, beginning when she was eight years of age. The jury were invited to take the evidence about sexual offences other than the four charged into account, when considering their verdicts with respect to those four. Further, the judge took the additional allegations into account on sentence. No complaint was made below about the admission in evidence of the additional allegations or their having been used in the way we have mentioned; nor is that aspect of the matter complained of before us. At the trial and on appeal the appellant has relied on inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, both with respect to the four charged incidents and with respect to others.

Although then counsel for the appellant suggested to the complainant at the trial that accident might have been explanation for certain of the allegations of sexual interference which she made, the appellant's case there was that the complainant's story was simply untrue. However, it was not controverted by evidence; the appellant neither gave nor called any.

The learned trial judge ruled that the evidence of the complainant was uncorroborated. The complainant's father gave some evidence which supported the complainant's story in some respects, but not, except as to one matter, in any way which appears to have significance. That point is further discussed below.

After numerous acts of sexual interference from about the age of…

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 Oldham

Details

AGLC: R v Oldham [1993] QCA 430
Case: [1993] QCA 430
Decision Date: 27/10/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Oldham involved the respondent, Oldham, who was convicted of several serious offences against a girl who was under 14 years old at the time of the alleged incidents. The girl did not report these incidents until she was almost 19 years old. The High Court of Australia was called upon to review the safety of the verdict, considering the delay in reporting and the perceived inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence.

The primary legal issues that the Court had to address were whether the delay in the complaint rendered the verdict unsafe and whether the inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony were so significant that they compromised the safety and reliability of the conviction. The Court had to evaluate the credibility and reliability of the complainant's delayed testimony, considering the inherent difficulties in such cases and the potential for memory distortion over time.

The Court determined that the delay in reporting the alleged offences did not necessarily undermine the safety of the verdict, as the credibility of the complainant’s testimony was supported by other evidence and circumstances. The Court also found that the inconsistencies in the complainant's account, while notable, did not reach the level of being so substantial as to cast significant doubt on the conviction. The Court held that the jury was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence and that the verdict was safe and satisfactory. The appeal was thus dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were to affirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court, upholding the jury's decision as safe and satisfactory despite the noted issues with the timing and consistency of the complainant's testimony.

Orders