R v Pryor; ex parte - [2001] QCA 241

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Pryor; ex parte A-G [2001] QCA 241

PARTIES: R
v
PRYOR, George Allan
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 275 of 2000
DC No 377 of 2000

PARTIES: R
v
PRYOR, George Allan
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 279 of 2000
DC No 377 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal Cairns Circuit

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 22 June 2001

DELIVERED AT: Cairns

HEARING DATE: 19 June 2001

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Davies JA and Jones J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Appeal against sentence dismissed.
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE – whether evidence said to constitute similar facts was admissible

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – CONVICTION UNSAFE AND UNSATISFACTORY

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – a cumulative sentence cannot be imposed on a life sentence and the sentence was not manifestly inadequate or excessive

R v Cranston [1988] 1 QdR 159, considered
R v Griffith CA No 339 of 1998, 3 February 1999, applied
R v Mickelo [1993] 1 QdR 230, applied
R v O'Keefe [2000] 1 QdR 564, considered
R v Pfennig (1995) 182 CLR 461, considered

COUNSEL: G Lynham for Pryor
N V Weston for the Crown

SOLICITORS:
Queensland Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Services for Pryor

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown

THE COURT: The appellant was convicted in the Townsville District Court on 25 September 2000 of the offences of burglary and rape which were committed on 28 November 1985. Mr Lynham, who appears for the appellant, contends first, that the learned trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence and second, that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The evidence other than similar fact evidence

The complainant, who was separated, was living with her two year old daughter in Slacks Creek, Brisbane on the evening of the offences. She went to bed about 10.00 pm after securing all windows and doors. As she was dozing off she felt a knife at her throat and a man told her to roll over. There were no lights on and the house was dark. Her assailant put a pillow over her head. Over the following few minutes her nightie and underpants were removed and she was raped. The assailant threatened to kill her daughter if she moved within 10 minutes. She was unable to identify the rapist.

The appellant's fingerprints of the left index finger, left middle finger and left ring finger and right ring finger were found on the outside of the complainant's main bedroom window. The appellant's fingerprints of the left index and…

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; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Pryor; ex parte [2001] QCA 241
Case: [2001] QCA 241
Decision Date: 22 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pryor, ex parte, involved the appellant challenging both their conviction and the subsequent sentence imposed by the court. The primary focus of the appeal was the admissibility of similar fact evidence that was presented during the trial, which the appellant argued should not have been allowed. Additionally, the appellant contended that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that the sentence was either manifestly inadequate or excessive.

The court was tasked with determining whether the similar fact evidence was properly admitted and if its inclusion led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory conviction. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, particularly in light of the appellant's argument that a cumulative sentence should not have been applied to a life sentence, and that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate or excessive.

The court held that the similar fact evidence was properly admitted and did not render the conviction unsafe or unsatisfactory. The reasoning focused on the relevance and probative value of the evidence in establishing the appellant's identity and intent. The court further found that the sentence, despite being cumulative, was not manifestly inadequate or excessive and did not warrant any alteration. The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Pryor; ex parte A-G [2001] QCA 241
PARTIES:	R v PRYOR, George Allan (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 275 of 2000 DC No 377 of 2000
PARTIES:	R v PRYOR, George Allan (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 279 of 2000 DC No 377 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal Cairns Circuit
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	22 June 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2001
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and Jones J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed. Appeal against sentence dismissed. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE – whether evidence said to constitute similar facts was admissible CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – CONVICTION UNSAFE AND UNSATISFACTORY CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – a cumulative sentence cannot be imposed on a life sentence and the sentence was not manifestly inadequate or excessive R v Cranston [1988] 1 QdR 159, considered R v Griffith CA No 339 of 1998, 3 February 1999, applied R v Mickelo [1993] 1 QdR 230, applied R v O'Keefe [2000] 1 QdR 564, considered R v Pfennig (1995) 182 CLR 461, considered
COUNSEL:	G Lynham for Pryor N V Weston for the Crown
SOLICITORS:	Queensland Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Services for Pryor Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown