R v Pretorius

Case [2009] QCA 58

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pretorius [2009] QCA 58

PARTIES:

R
v
PRETORIUS, Johannes Petrus
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 329 of 2008
DC No 357 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

20 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2009

JUDGES:

Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant was tried on three counts of indecent assault – where appellant was convicted on two counts and acquitted on one – where, at a pre-trial hearing, the primary judge held that evidence relating to the later offence was admissible in proof of the earlier offences and visa versa – where primary judge also held evidence of "uncharged acts" was admissible in proof of all counts – whether primary judge’s ruling in relation to admissibility was an error of law – whether evidence improperly admitted

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND COINCIDENCE – JOINDER OF PERSONS OR COUNTS – where appellant was tried on three counts of indecent assault – where each count was in respect of a different female but all took place around the same time – where all three counts were heard together – whether primary judge erred in failing to order that count 1, the later offence, be tried separately from counts 2 and 3, the earlier offences

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – TAKING OBJECTION TO SUMMING UP – where the primary judge held that evidence of the later offence was admissible in proof of the earlier offences – whether primary judge failed to give directions concerning the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted and a warning about the dangers inherent in the evidence

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant was convicted on two counts of indecent assault and acquitted of another – whether, having regard to inconsistencies in the evidence, the verdict of the jury in relation to the earlier counts was unreasonable

Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437; [1952] HCA 3, cited
BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275; [1997] HCA 47, cited
HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; (2008) 82 ALJR 723; [2008] HCA 16, considered
KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; [2001] HCA 11, considered
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
Mule v R (2005) 79 ALJR 1573; [2005] HCA 49, cited
Perry v The Queen (1982) 150 CLR 580; [1982] HCA 75, cited
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461

Continue reading R v Pretorius

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pretorius [2009] QCA 58
Case
[2009] QCA 58
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of two counts of indecent assault, following a trial in the Supreme Court. The appellant was acquitted of a third count of indecent assault. The appellant appealed against the convictions, asserting errors in the primary judge's handling of evidence and directions to the jury. The appeal primarily focused on the admissibility of evidence relating to uncharged acts, the joinder of offences, and the adequacy of the summing up. The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in admitting evidence that was not directly related to the charges, whether the charges should have been tried separately, and if the judge's summing up was adequate in warning the jury about the dangers of the evidence.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in admitting evidence of uncharged acts as it was relevant to the appellant's propensity and the context of the events. The court held that the joinder of the counts was appropriate given the similar nature of the offences and their occurrence around the same time. Regarding the summing up, the court determined that the judge sufficiently directed the jury on the limited purpose of the evidence and warned about its potential prejudicial effect. The court concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable, considering the evidence as a whole, and dismissed the appeal against the convictions.

In light of the findings, the appeal against the convictions was dismissed. The court found no basis to order a new trial, as the trial was conducted fairly and the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence. The court upheld the convictions on two counts of indecent assault and affirmed the acquittal on the third count.

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.