R v Phillips - [2017] QCA 147

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Phillips [2017] QCA 147

PARTIES:

R
v
PHILLIPS, Joseph Robert
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 97 of 2016
CA No 145 of 2016
DC No 1995 of 2015
DC No 836 of 2016
DC No 842 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 24 March 2016; Date of Sentence: 29 April 2016

DELIVERED ON:

11 July 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 December 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philippides and McMurdo JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of offences of torture, rape, and attempted rape – where the appellant pulled the complainant’s pants down and dragged her into the car on top of him – where the complainant admitted difficulty in explaining the mechanism by which the appellant was able to effect penetration – where the appellant threatened that he would shoot the complainant and that he had a gun in his bag – where appellant forced the top of his penis past the complainant’s lips and on to the front of her teeth – where the appellant unsuccessfully attempted to penetrate the complainant multiple times – where the appellant penetrated the complainant’s vagina for about five or six minutes – where the appellant told the complainant that if she got pregnant he would kick her in the guts if he found out – whether the guilty verdicts are unreasonable because they are irreconcilably inconsistent with the acquittal on another count – whether it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of each element of those offences

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – PARTIALITY – where the jury had retired to consider their verdict – where a juror felt that their questions and answers were not being valued by other members of the jury – where the juror alleged that another juror had pre-determined guilt – where this juror asked to be excused – where defence counsel applied for the jury to be discharged – where the trial judge rejected that application – where both counsel submitted that this was not a case in which a juror was incapable of continuing as a juror, within the meaning of s 56(1)(b) of the Jury Act – whether the event gave rise to a reasonable apprehension or suspicion on the part of a fair minded and informed member of the public that one of the jurors, or the jury, has not discharged or will not discharge the task impartially

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL…

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 Phillips

Details

AGLC: R v Phillips [2017] QCA 147
Case: [2017] QCA 147
Decision Date: 11 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Phillips, the appellant was found guilty by a jury of offences including torture, rape, and attempted rape. The court was tasked with determining whether the guilty verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable, particularly in light of an acquittal on another count, and whether the jury was reasonably satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of each element of those offences. The appellant also contested irregularities in relation to the jury, including an incident where a juror felt undervalued and another juror allegedly pre-determined guilt, which led to an application for the jury to be discharged. The appellant further appealed against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether the appellant's conduct met the criteria for the charges of torture, rape, and attempted rape, considering the evidence presented, including the complainant's testimony and the appellant's actions. The court found that the jury's verdicts were supported by the evidence, and the guilty verdicts were not unreasonable or insupportable. The court also determined that there was no basis for discharging the jury due to the incident, as it did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of partiality. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the sentencing judge's decision was within the appropriate discretion, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the absence of remorse.

Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court upheld the jury's verdicts and the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

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 Phillips [2017] QCA 147
PARTIES:	R v PHILLIPS, Joseph Robert (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 97 of 2016 CA No 145 of 2016 DC No 1995 of 2015 DC No 836 of 2016 DC No 842 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 24 March 2016; Date of Sentence: 29 April 2016
DELIVERED ON:	11 July 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 December 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Philippides and McMurdo JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of offences of torture, rape, and attempted rape – where the appellant pulled the complainant’s pants down and dragged her into the car on top of him – where the complainant admitted difficulty in explaining the mechanism by which the appellant was able to effect penetration – where the appellant threatened that he would shoot the complainant and that he had a gun in his bag – where appellant forced the top of his penis past the complainant’s lips and on to the front of her teeth – where the appellant unsuccessfully attempted to penetrate the complainant multiple times – where the appellant penetrated the complainant’s vagina for about five or six minutes – where the appellant told the complainant that if she got pregnant he would kick her in the guts if he found out – whether the guilty verdicts are unreasonable because they are irreconcilably inconsistent with the acquittal on another count – whether it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of each element of those offences CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY – PARTIALITY – where the jury had retired to consider their verdict – where a juror felt that their questions and answers were not being valued by other members of the jury – where the juror alleged that another juror had pre-determined guilt – where this juror asked to be excused – where defence counsel applied for the jury to be discharged – where the trial judge rejected that application – where both counsel submitted that this was not a case in which a juror was incapable of continuing as a juror, within the meaning of s 56(1)(b) of the Jury Act – whether the event gave rise to a reasonable apprehension or suspicion on the part of a fair minded and informed member of the public that one of the jurors, or the jury, has not discharged or will not discharge the task impartially CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL…