R v Postchild - [2014] QCA 91

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Postchild [2014] QCA 91

PARTIES:

R
v
POSTCHILD, Jay Michael Henry
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 44 of 2013
DC No 36 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and A Lyons and Applegarth JJ
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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of the rape of his girlfriend – where the appellant claimed the complainant was not a credible or reliable witness – where the appellant claimed DNA testing of the duct tape used to tie the complainant’s hands should have been conducted – whether the jury’s verdict was unsafe or unreasonable in light of the evidence

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, [1994] HCA 63, cited
Michaelides v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 456; (2013) 296 ALR 1; [2013] HCA 9, cited
R v Postchild[2013] QCA 227, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: This appeal against conviction should be dismissed for the reasons given by Applegarth J.

ANN LYONS J: I agree with the reasons of Applegarth J and the order proposed.

APPLEGARTH J: The appellant was convicted of raping his then girlfriend, Ms A, on 10 May 2012. There is no dispute that on that night the appellant tied each of Ms A’s wrists to slats on a bedhead with duct tape. The only issue at trial was whether Ms A consented to the sexual intercourse that followed.

The appellant alleges the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and points to what are said to be discrepancies and inadequacies in the evidence. The issue for this Court is whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse was without Ms A’s consent.

The evidence

Ms A and the appellant formed a relationship in February 2012. She was 19 years old and had a young son. She maintained contact with her child’s father, Mr R, and still had feelings for him.

The complainant and the appellant had first met when she was 14 or 15, but they did not reconnect until early 2012. In February that year they started a relationship and the appellant moved from Mackay to live with Ms A in her country town. He moved into a house which the complainant and her son shared with another woman and that woman’s young child. The…

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 Postchild

Details

AGLC: R v Postchild [2014] QCA 91
Case: [2014] QCA 91
Decision Date: 29 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted of the rape of his girlfriend and appealed against his conviction on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable or unsafe given the evidence. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which had to determine whether the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence, particularly in light of the appellant's arguments regarding the complainant's credibility and the omission of DNA testing on the duct tape used during the assault. The court also had to consider the appellant's argument that the jury had not properly considered the evidence of a text message sent by the complainant after the alleged assault, which the appellant argued suggested consent.

The court considered the evidence presented at trial and the arguments made by both parties. It examined the credibility of the complainant and the appellant's contention that the jury had not properly considered the evidence of the text message. The court also evaluated the significance of the omission of DNA testing on the duct tape. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unsafe, given the evidence presented at trial. The court found that the complainant's evidence was credible and that the jury had properly considered all the evidence before reaching its verdict.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction. It held that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unsafe, and that the omission of DNA testing on the duct tape did not affect the safety of the verdict. The court also found that the evidence of the text message did not undermine the complainant's credibility or suggest consent. The appellant's appeal was therefore dismissed.

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 Postchild [2014] QCA 91
PARTIES:	R v POSTCHILD, Jay Michael Henry (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 44 of 2013 DC No 36 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Kingaroy
DELIVERED ON:	29 April 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 March 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and A Lyons and Applegarth JJ 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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of the rape of his girlfriend – where the appellant claimed the complainant was not a credible or reliable witness – where the appellant claimed DNA testing of the duct tape used to tie the complainant’s hands should have been conducted – whether the jury’s verdict was unsafe or unreasonable in light of the evidence M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, [1994] HCA 63, cited Michaelides v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 456; (2013) 296 ALR 1; [2013] HCA 9, cited R v Postchild[2013] QCA 227, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent