R v Pryor - [2007] QCA 232

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pryor [2007] QCA 232

PARTIES:

R
v
PRYOR, Anthony Paul
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 299 of 2006
DC No 93 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

20 July 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2007

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Grant leave to appeal against sentence
3. Appeal allowed
4. Set aside the serious violent offence declaration
5. Otherwise confirm the sentences imposed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of rape and assault occasioning bodily harm but acquitted of one count of assault – whether any inconsistency between convictions and acquittal – whether convictions unsafe, unsatisfactory or unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – CONDUCT OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – where appellant revoked instructions to first counsel – where counsel had cross-examined complainant about prior sexual relationship with appellant – where Judge critical of counsel’s cross-examination – whether counsel’s approach was a “rational tactical decision” – whether conduct of first counsel gave rise to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE – PREJUDICE TO ACCUSED – where appellant revoked instructions to counsel – where trial resumed with second counsel, who unsuccessfully sought discharge of jury – whether circumstances led to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where appellant convicted of rape and assault occasioning bodily harm – where appellant sentenced to seven years imprisonment and serious violent offence declaration made – whether serious violent offence declaration rendered sentence manifestly excessive

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 24
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132B

TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124, applied

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the appellant/applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (Townsville and Surrounding Districts) for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

JERSEY CJde: The applicant was convicted following a trial of rape and assault occasioning bodily harm. He was acquitted on a further charge of unlawful assault. That charge had been amended, from assault occasioning bodily harm, following the prosecutor’s concession there was no evidence of bodily harm.

Brief summary of the facts

The offences occurred in mid-2005 at Townsville, a month or so into…

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 Pryor

Details

AGLC: R v Pryor [2007] QCA 232
Case: [2007] QCA 232
Decision Date: 20 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pryor, the appellant, who had been convicted of rape and assault occasioning bodily harm, appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The jury acquitted the appellant of one count of assault, leading to an inconsistency that needed to be addressed. The appellant argued that the verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable, and that the conduct of his initial counsel during the trial had prejudiced his defence, justifying a new trial.

The court considered whether the convictions were unsafe, unsatisfactory, or unreasonable, given the acquittal on one count of assault. It also examined the tactical decisions made by the appellant's initial counsel, including cross-examining the complainant about her prior sexual relationship with the appellant, and whether this conduct amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that while the initial counsel's approach was criticised by the trial judge, it did not rise to the level of a miscarriage of justice. The court also determined that the revocation of instructions to the first counsel and the subsequent resumption of the trial with a second counsel did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The appellant further appealed against his sentence, arguing that the serious violent offence declaration rendered his seven-year imprisonment term manifestly excessive. The court granted leave to appeal against the sentence and, upon review, allowed the appeal. The court set aside the serious violent offence declaration but confirmed the sentences imposed by the trial court. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the sentence was adjusted accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Grant leave to appeal against sentence

3. Appeal allowed

4. Set aside the serious violent offence declaration

5. Otherwise confirm the sentences imposed

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 Pryor [2007] QCA 232
PARTIES:	R v PRYOR, Anthony Paul (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 299 of 2006 DC No 93 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	20 July 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 July 2007
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams and Jerrard JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Grant leave to appeal against sentence 3. Appeal allowed 4. Set aside the serious violent offence declaration 5. Otherwise confirm the sentences imposed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of rape and assault occasioning bodily harm but acquitted of one count of assault – whether any inconsistency between convictions and acquittal – whether convictions unsafe, unsatisfactory or unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – CONDUCT OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – where appellant revoked instructions to first counsel – where counsel had cross-examined complainant about prior sexual relationship with appellant – where Judge critical of counsel’s cross-examination – whether counsel’s approach was a “rational tactical decision” – whether conduct of first counsel gave rise to a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE – PREJUDICE TO ACCUSED – where appellant revoked instructions to counsel – where trial resumed with second counsel, who unsuccessfully sought discharge of jury – whether circumstances led to a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where appellant convicted of rape and assault occasioning bodily harm – where appellant sentenced to seven years imprisonment and serious violent offence declaration made – whether serious violent offence declaration rendered sentence manifestly excessive Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 24 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132B TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124, applied
COUNSEL:	A W Collins for the appellant/applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (Townsville and Surrounding Districts) for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent