R v PS

Case [2004] QCA 347

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PS [2004] QCA 347

PARTIES:

R
v
PS
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 75 of 2004
CA No 149 of 2004
DC No 101 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Innisfail

DELIVERED ON:

24 September 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2004

JUDGES:

Williams JA and Cullinane and Jones JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
Williams JA and Cullinane J agreeing as to the orders made, Jones J dissenting in part

ORDERS:

Appeal against convictions dismissed1.   

2.   Grant leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal to the extent only of setting aside the sentence on Count 7 of nine years imprisonment and substituting a term of seven years imprisonment and further setting aside the serious violent offence declarations made with respect to Counts 7 and 8

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER – OF COUNTS – BY STATUTE – SAME FACTS OR SERIES OF OFFENCES OF SAME OR SIMILAR CHARACTER – where appellant charged with eight offences of sexual nature – where charges joined – whether sufficient similarity in offences to justify joinder – whether evidence on each count cross-admissible on other counts – whether joinder caused miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – JOINT TRIAL OF SEVERAL COUNTS – where appellant convicted on three counts of rape, two counts of unlawful carnal knowledge and one count of assault with intent to rape – where learned trial judge directed jury as to the use that could, and could not, be made of evidence of each complainant in considering each of the other counts involving different complainants – whether learned trial judge sufficiently warned the jury against “propensity reasoning”

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where jury found appellant guilty of rape and not guilty of indecent assault with a circumstance of aggravation with respect to one complainant and not guilty of rape and guilty of unlawful carnal knowledge with respect to a different complainant – whether rational explanation for jury’s verdicts – whether verdicts open on the evidence – whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – where applicant sentenced to nine years imprisonment with serious violent offence declaration for one rape offence and lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment for other two rape offences and two unlawful carnal knowledge offences – where sentenced to three  years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration for assault with intent to rape, cumulative on other sentences – whether…

Continue reading R v PS

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v PS [2004] QCA 347
Case
[2004] QCA 347
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, PS, appealed against his convictions and sentence for multiple sexual offences. The court had to determine the validity of the joinder of multiple counts in the indictment, whether the evidence was properly admissible, and the propriety of the sentence. The appeal against the convictions was dismissed, but leave to appeal against the sentence was granted. The sentence on Count 7 was set aside and substituted with a term of seven years imprisonment, and the serious violent offence declarations for Counts 7 and 8 were also set aside.

The court first examined the propriety of joining multiple counts in the indictment under statutory provisions allowing for the joinder of offences based on the same facts or series of offences of the same or similar character. The court concluded that the charges were sufficiently similar to justify their joinder, and the evidence was properly cross-admissible. The court found no miscarriage of justice due to the joinder.

Regarding the convictions, the court considered whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the use of evidence from one complainant in considering charges involving different complainants. The court held that the trial judge had sufficiently warned the jury against propensity reasoning. The court also examined whether the jury's verdicts were rational and open on the evidence, ultimately finding them to be both rational and supported by the evidence.

The court reviewed the sentence, considering whether the nine-year imprisonment term for one rape offence was manifestly excessive and whether the serious violent offence declarations rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The court found the original sentence to be manifestly excessive and reduced the term for Count 7 to seven years, while also setting aside the serious violent offence declarations for Counts 7 and 8.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against convictions dismissed1.

2. Grant leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal to the extent only of setting aside the sentence on Count 7 of nine years imprisonment and substituting a term of seven years imprisonment and further setting aside the serious violent offence declarations made with respect to Counts 7 and 8

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.