R v Quinlan - [2012] QCA 132

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Quinlan [2012] QCA 132

PARTIES:

R
v
QUINLAN, William Alan
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 336 of 2011
DC No 186 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

22 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 May 2012

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Fryberg and Martin JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant found guilty by jury and convicted of one count of sexual assault and sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended after seven weeks for an operational period of 12 months – where appellant committed offence whilst driving complainant home in appellant’s taxi – where appellant argued verdict unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to evidence – where appellant argued jury failed to give adequate attention to video evidence – where appellant argued jury gave insufficient attention to inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended after seven weeks for an operational period of 12 months – where appellant argued no sentence should have been imposed – whether the sentencing judge erred

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v Jones[2003] QCA 450, considered
R v Libl, ex-parte Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [1996] QCA 63, considered
R v Verma (unreported, indictment No 1125 of 2011, McGill SC DCJ, 22 September 2011), considered
R v Watson[1996] QCA 158, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
D C Boyle for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: The appellant was found guilty by a jury and convicted of one count of sexual assault after a three day trial in the Cairns District Court. He has appealed against his conviction and he has applied for leave to appeal against his sentence of six months imprisonment, suspended after seven weeks for an operational period of 12 months.

Appeal against conviction

The grounds of appeal are:

“1.The verdicts were unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
2.The jury failed to give any, or any adequate, attention to the video of the interior of the taxi which was installed to guard against false allegations against taxi drivers, and which showed no action on the part of the Appellant which supported the allegation made by…

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 Quinlan

Details

AGLC: R v Quinlan [2012] QCA 132
Case: [2012] QCA 132
Decision Date: 22 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Quinlan involved an appellant who was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault and subsequently sentenced to six months imprisonment, which was suspended after serving seven weeks, with an operational period of 12 months. The offence took place when the appellant was driving the complainant home in his taxi. The appellant contested the conviction and the sentence, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The appellant contended that the jury failed to adequately consider the video evidence and overlooked inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The legal issues before the court included whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented, and whether the jury adequately considered the video evidence and the inconsistencies in the complainant's account. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there were grounds for interfering with the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The appellant argued that the jury's failure to appropriately weigh the evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice and that the sentence was inappropriate.

The court thoroughly reviewed the evidence, including the video footage and the complainant's testimony, and found no basis to conclude that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable. The court held that the jury had adequately considered the evidence, including the video evidence, and that there were no significant inconsistencies that would undermine the reliability of the complainant's account. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the sentencing judge had not erred and there were no grounds to interfere with the sentence imposed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction and to refuse the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. 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 Quinlan [2012] QCA 132
PARTIES:	R v QUINLAN, William Alan (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 336 of 2011 DC No 186 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	22 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 May 2012
JUDGES:	Fraser JA and Fryberg and Martin JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant found guilty by jury and convicted of one count of sexual assault and sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended after seven weeks for an operational period of 12 months – where appellant committed offence whilst driving complainant home in appellant’s taxi – where appellant argued verdict unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to evidence – where appellant argued jury failed to give adequate attention to video evidence – where appellant argued jury gave insufficient attention to inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended after seven weeks for an operational period of 12 months – where appellant argued no sentence should have been imposed – whether the sentencing judge erred M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Jones[2003] QCA 450, considered R v Libl, ex-parte Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [1996] QCA 63, considered R v Verma (unreported, indictment No 1125 of 2011, McGill SC DCJ, 22 September 2011), considered R v Watson[1996] QCA 158, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf D C Boyle for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent