R v P - [2003] QCA 324

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v P [2003] QCA 324

PARTIES:

R v P (appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 110 of 2003
DC No 95 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 25 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 25 July 2003
JUDGES: Davies and Williams JJA, and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW- APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant charged on five counts – where convicted on counts three to five – where acquitted on count two – whether verdicts returned so irreconcilably inconsistent that they are unreasonable and unsupportable by evidence – whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory
COUNSEL: P Callaghan for the appellant M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

MACKENZIE J: The appellant appeals against conviction on the grounds that the verdicts of guilty returned by the jury are irreconcilably inconsistent with the verdict of not guilty returned by the jury on the count 2, and that the verdicts of the jury are unreasonable, cannot be supported by the evidence and are thus unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Counts 1 and 2 were based on one occasion. Count 1 was that the appellant administered a drug to the complainant with intent to stupefy her to enable a sexual act to be engaged in with her. Count 2 charged that the appellant being the occupier of premises knowingly permitted the complainant, the child under 16 to be in the premises for the purposes of a person unlawfully and indecently dealing with her. At the end of the evidence a nolle prosequi was entered on count 1 due to inadequacy of evidence relating to administration of a drug. The jury returned a verdict of acquittal on count 2.

Counts 3, 4 and 5 related to one occasion. Count 3 charged that the appellant wilfully and unlawfully exposed the complainant, a child under 16, to an indecent act by the appellant with circumstances of aggravation that the child was her lineal descendant and under her care. Count 4 charged the appellant with unlawfully and indecently dealing with the girl with the same circumstances of aggravation. Count 5 charged the appellant with the rape of the complainant.

Count 6 charged wilfully and unlawfully exposing the complainant, a child under 16, to an indecent act by the appellant with the same circumstances of aggravation. Verdicts of guilty were returned on counts 3 to 6. At the time of all offences the appellant was in a relationship with a man who is now deceased. It is accepted that the learned trial Judge appropriately and forcefully told the jury that the prosecution case rested on the credibility…

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 P

Details

AGLC: R v P [2003] QCA 324
Case: [2003] QCA 324
Decision Date: 25/07/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v P, the appellant was charged on five counts related to criminal activities, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, deprivation of liberty, and indecent assault. The trial resulted in the appellant being convicted on counts three to five, while being acquitted on count two. The appellant subsequently appealed against the conviction, arguing that the verdicts returned were so irreconcilably inconsistent that they were unreasonable and unsupportable by the evidence. The appeal was heard by the court, which was required to decide whether the verdicts were indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory, warranting a new trial or an inquiry after conviction.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence presented during the trial and considered the consistency of the verdicts. It was determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction on counts three to five, while also acknowledging the acquittal on count two. The court held that the verdicts, while seemingly inconsistent, were not so unreasonable or unsupportable as to warrant a new trial or an inquiry after conviction. The court found that the jury had the opportunity to consider all the evidence and had made its decisions based on the applicable legal standards.

Given the court's reasoning, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant's conviction on counts three to five was upheld, and no new trial or inquiry was ordered. The court's decision was based on the principle that the jury's role is to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, and to apply the law as directed by the judge. In this case, the jury had done so, and the court found no grounds to interfere with the verdicts. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction on counts three to five remain in place.

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 P [2003] QCA 324
PARTIES:	R v P (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 110 of 2003 DC No 95 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	25 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 July 2003
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA, and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant charged on five counts – where convicted on counts three to five – where acquitted on count two – whether verdicts returned so irreconcilably inconsistent that they are unreasonable and unsupportable by evidence – whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory
COUNSEL:	P Callaghan for the appellant M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent