R v PAH

[2008] QCA 265

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PAH [2008] QCA 265

PARTIES:

R
v
PAH
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 69 of 2008
DC No 3426 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 August 2008

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Mackenzie AJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

The appeal against conviction is allowed1.   

The conviction is quashed2.   

It is directed that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered3.   

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL ALLOWED – where appellant convicted of one count of rape of her daughter – where the complainant child gave contradictory accounts of when the offence occurred and what it consisted of – where the complainant child’s initial complaint referred to being in a “dreamlike state” at the commencement of the offence – where the complainant child, in interviews with police, referred to “blanking out” after the touching began – where the complainant child conceded in cross-examination that she could have been dreaming and could not be sure it was her mother who committed the offence – where the complainant child later affirmed her allegation under cross-examination – where the complainant child alleged similar acts had occurred over a period of
six years, but could not provide details of such acts – where  the inconsistencies in the complainant child’s evidence and the lack of corroboration were the subject of proper directions by the learned trial judge – whether, upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt – whether, allowing for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 668E

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied

COUNSEL:

J J Allen for the appellant
A J Edwards for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the orders proposed by Mackenzie AJA and with his Honour’s reasons for those orders.

1. MACKENZIE AJA:  This is an appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence.  The appellant was convicted at trial of one count of rape of her daughter during the months of November 2005 to February 2006.  She was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment.

Grounds of Appeal against Conviction

1. The only ground of appeal pursued was a contention that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it was unreasonable…