R v Oqm - [2025] QDCPR 44

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v OQM [2025] QDCPR 44

PARTIES:

THE KING

v

OQM
(applicant defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD304/25

DIVISION:

Criminal

DELIVERED ON:

24 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 May 2025

JUDGE:

Allen KC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1. The following propensity evidence is admissible in the trial of the defendant:

(A) facts pertaining to the conviction of counts 2 and 3 on indictment 1260/12 relating to BIF;

(B) the facts pertaining to the conviction of the defendant on counts 1, 2 and 3 on indictment 685/12 relating to GOH; and

(C) the facts pertaining to the conviction of count 1 on indictment 686/12 relating to TID as he was then known.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND CO-INCIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – PROPENSITY EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTION – where the Crown applied to lead evidence of prior convictions - where the defendant was convicted after trial of similar offences – where the defendant entered guilty pleas to similar offences - whether the evidence of prior convictions had substantive probative value.

R v CDA (2022) 13 QR 62
R v HCR; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [2024] QCA 192
R v LBE [2024] QCA 53

COUNSEL:

Ms I J Macnicol for the Crown

Ms N Keys for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant

The defendant is charged on an indictment alleging that, on a date unknown between the 1^st day of January 1987 and the 17^th day of July 1989 at Alexandra Hills in the State of Queensland, he had carnal knowledge of HEW against the order of nature. The Crown has filed an application seeking a ruling that certain propensity evidence sought to be led by the Crown is admissible.
The evidence sought to be led is identified as evidence of “conviction, and facts pertaining to the conviction of” counts 2 and 3 on indictment 1260/12 relating to a victim BIF, and the conviction of the defendant on counts 1, 2 and 3 of indictment 685/12 relating to a victim GOH and relating to the conviction of the defendant on count 1 of indictment 686/12 relating to the victim then known as TID.
The defendant was convicted in this court after trial of the offences relating to BIF and subsequently entered pleas of guilty in relation to the offences against GOH and TID. The Crown seeks to lead the evidence of those offences against those three complainants as propensity evidence in the trial of the defendant on the charge of offending against HEW.
There is a recent and helpful discussion of the applicable law in the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v HCR; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [2024] QCA 192 in the reasons of Burns J, with whom the President and Bond JA agreed, at paragraphs [29] to [33] (footnotes as per original):
[29] As the Court observed…

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 Oqm

Details

AGLC: R v Oqm [2025] QDCPR 44
Case: [2025] QDCPR 44
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Oqm, the defendant was convicted after trial of certain offences, following previous convictions for similar offences. The Crown sought to introduce evidence of prior convictions to establish a pattern of behaviour and propensity to commit such offences. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of prior convictions had sufficient substantive probative value to outweigh any prejudicial effect on the defendant.

The court examined the admissibility of propensity evidence under the relevant legislative provisions. It was determined that the evidence of prior convictions did indeed possess substantive probative value in establishing a pattern of behaviour. The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendant. Consequently, the Crown's application to admit the evidence was successful.

The court's reasoning focused on the necessity to prevent injustice in the current trial by allowing the jury to understand the defendant's propensity to commit similar offences. The court found that the evidence of prior convictions was relevant to establishing the defendant's character and the likelihood of committing the current offences. The court noted that the similarities between the prior and current offences were significant, thereby enhancing the probative value of the evidence.

The court admitted the following propensity evidence in the trial of the defendant: (A) facts pertaining to the conviction of counts 2 and 3 on indictment 1260/12 relating to BIF; (B) the facts pertaining to the conviction of the defendant on counts 1, 2 and 3 on indictment 685/12 relating to GOH; and (C) the facts pertaining to the conviction of count 1 on indictment 686/12 relating to TID as he was then known.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The following propensity evidence is admissible in the trial of the defendant:

(A) facts pertaining to the conviction of counts 2 and 3 on indictment 1260/12 relating to BIF;

(B) the facts pertaining to the conviction of the defendant on counts 1, 2 and 3 on indictment 685/12 relating to GOH; and

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 OQM [2025] QDCPR 44
PARTIES:	THE KING
v
OQM (applicant defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD304/25
DIVISION:	Criminal
DELIVERED ON:	24 June 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 May 2025
JUDGE:	Allen KC, DCJ
ORDERS:	1. The following propensity evidence is admissible in the trial of the defendant: (A) facts pertaining to the conviction of counts 2 and 3 on indictment 1260/12 relating to BIF; (B) the facts pertaining to the conviction of the defendant on counts 1, 2 and 3 on indictment 685/12 relating to GOH; and (C) the facts pertaining to the conviction of count 1 on indictment 686/12 relating to TID as he was then known.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND CO-INCIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – PROPENSITY EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTION – where the Crown applied to lead evidence of prior convictions - where the defendant was convicted after trial of similar offences – where the defendant entered guilty pleas to similar offences - whether the evidence of prior convictions had substantive probative value. R v CDA (2022) 13 QR 62 R v HCR; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [2024] QCA 192 R v LBE [2024] QCA 53
COUNSEL:	Ms I J Macnicol for the Crown Ms N Keys for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant