R v Oliver - [2002] QCA 511

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Oliver [2002] QCA 511

PARTIES:

R
v
OLIVER, Dale Andrew
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 289 of 2002
DC No 270 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

22 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2002

JUDGES:

Davies and McPherson JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT - CONSENT - GENERALLY - where appellant convicted of five counts of rape arising out of one incident - where the appellant does not deny he engaged in sexual activity with the complainant - where the complainant was cross-examined at considerable length - whether verdict was reasonable

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant convicted of five counts of rape arising out of one incident - where the only direct evidence was by the complainant - whether verdict was reasonable

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PROSECUTION - VENUE - CHANGE OF - GENERALLY - where appellant convicted of five counts of rape - where before the trial the learned trial judge refused to accede to an application for a change of venue - where argued the appellant would not have a fair trial due to inaccurate media reporting and members of the jury wanting to discourage crimes of violence because of their effect on tourist revenue - whether learned trial judge erred in refusing to order a change of venue

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - GENERALLY - where appellant fled after commission of the crime - where bank records showed where the appellant travelled - whether the evidence of flight should not have been admitted

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - COMPLAINTS - FIRST REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - where appellant convicted of rape - where learned trial judge gave a direction with respect to recent complaint - whether the learned trial judge erred in his direction

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where appellant convicted of rape - where evidence of the appellant forcing the complainant into a bathroom - whether the learned trial judge's directions on this matter were unfair

COUNSEL:

K M McGinness for appellant
P D Kelly for respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

DAVIES JA: The appellant was convicted in the District Court on 29 August 2002 after a three day trial on five counts of rape. All…

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 Oliver

Details

AGLC: R v Oliver [2002] QCA 511
Case: [2002] QCA 511
Decision Date: 22 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Oliver involved the appellant, who was convicted of five counts of rape. The appellant did not contest that he had engaged in sexual activity with the complainant but challenged the conviction on various grounds. The appeal was heard in the higher court of Australia, which had to decide several legal issues. These included whether the verdict was reasonable given the evidence presented, particularly as it relied heavily on the complainant's testimony. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge's refusal to change the venue was an error, as the appellant argued that he could not receive a fair trial due to media coverage and community sentiment. Additionally, the court examined if the evidence of the appellant's flight after the alleged crime was admissible and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding certain aspects of the case were correct.

The higher court held that the verdict was reasonable, as the jury had thoroughly examined the complainant's evidence, which was corroborated by other factors. The court found that the trial judge did not err in refusing to change the venue, as there was no compelling evidence that a fair trial was impossible. Regarding the evidence of flight, the court ruled that it was properly admitted as it was relevant to the appellant's state of mind. The trial judge's directions to the jury were also deemed appropriate, and the appellant's claim of misdirection was dismissed. Therefore, the higher court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal against the verdict.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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 Oliver [2002] QCA 511
PARTIES:	R v OLIVER, Dale Andrew (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 289 of 2002 DC No 270 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	22 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 November 2002
JUDGES:	Davies and McPherson JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT - CONSENT - GENERALLY - where appellant convicted of five counts of rape arising out of one incident - where the appellant does not deny he engaged in sexual activity with the complainant - where the complainant was cross-examined at considerable length - whether verdict was reasonable CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant convicted of five counts of rape arising out of one incident - where the only direct evidence was by the complainant - whether verdict was reasonable CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PROSECUTION - VENUE - CHANGE OF - GENERALLY - where appellant convicted of five counts of rape - where before the trial the learned trial judge refused to accede to an application for a change of venue - where argued the appellant would not have a fair trial due to inaccurate media reporting and members of the jury wanting to discourage crimes of violence because of their effect on tourist revenue - whether learned trial judge erred in refusing to order a change of venue CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - GENERALLY - where appellant fled after commission of the crime - where bank records showed where the appellant travelled - whether the evidence of flight should not have been admitted CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - COMPLAINTS - FIRST REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - where appellant convicted of rape - where learned trial judge gave a direction with respect to recent complaint - whether the learned trial judge erred in his direction CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS - where appellant convicted of rape - where evidence of the appellant forcing the complainant into a bathroom - whether the learned trial judge's directions on this matter were unfair
COUNSEL:	K M McGinness for appellant P D Kelly for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent