R v R - [2002] QCA 294

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v R [2002] QCA 294

PARTIES:

R
v
R
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 14 of 2002
DC No 484 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

16 August 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2002

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against convictions dismissed;
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE OR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – WHEN NEW TRIAL REFUSED – VERDICT NOT UNREASONABLE – GENERALLY – appellant convicted of two counts of rape of his stepdaughter and acquitted of one count of rape and two counts of indecent treatment – where appellant had previously confessed to his church and the police to having sex with the complaninant and later at trial contradicting those confessions by admitting to committing adultery only in his mind – whether the convictions on the two rape charges were unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to the inconsistency with the verdicts of acquittal

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – JUDGE’S SUMMING UP - where appellant convicted of rape of stepdaughter – where evidence was led concerning acts of violence towards the complainant and others - whether learned trial judge erred in law by failing to propertly direct the jury as to the limited use they could make of evidence of violent acts by the accused upon the complainant – R v D distinguished

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – OTHER SEX OFFENDERS – appellant convicted of two counts of rape of his stepdaughter and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied
KRM v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 550, followed
Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, applied
R v D [2001] QCA 256; CA No 16 of 2001, 29 June 2001, distinguished
R v Maddox [1998] QCA 413; CA No 299 of 1998, 4 December 1998, applied
R v Sakail [1993] 1 Qd R 312, considered

COUNSEL:

K M McGinness for the appellant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

DAVIES JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Williams JA and with the orders he proposes.

WILLIAMS JA: The appellant was tried in the District Court on two charges of indecent treatment and three of rape. The complainant in each case was his step-daughter. He was found guilty of two…

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 R

Details

AGLC: R v R [2002] QCA 294
Case: [2002] QCA 294
Decision Date: 16 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v R, the appellant was convicted by a jury on two counts of raping his stepdaughter and acquitted on one count of rape and two counts of indecent treatment. The appellant appealed against his convictions and sentence, and also sought a new trial. The primary issues for the court to determine were whether the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory due to inconsistencies in the evidence, and whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the use of evidence of violent acts by the accused. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the convictions were not unsafe and unsatisfactory, as the jury's verdict, while inconsistent, was not unreasonable. The court noted that the jury was free to believe or disbelieve any evidence presented, and that the inconsistency did not necessarily indicate a miscarriage of justice. Regarding the trial judge's summing up, the court held that there was no error in the judge's directions to the jury about the use of evidence of violent acts, distinguishing it from the case of R v D. Finally, the court concluded that the sentence of seven years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The appeal against the convictions was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in any significant way, and that the jury's verdict, while inconsistent, was not unreasonable. The sentence imposed was considered appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against convictions 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 R [2002] QCA 294
PARTIES:	R v R (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 14 of 2002 DC No 484 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	16 August 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 August 2002
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and Holmes J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against convictions dismissed; 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE OR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – WHEN NEW TRIAL REFUSED – VERDICT NOT UNREASONABLE – GENERALLY – appellant convicted of two counts of rape of his stepdaughter and acquitted of one count of rape and two counts of indecent treatment – where appellant had previously confessed to his church and the police to having sex with the complaninant and later at trial contradicting those confessions by admitting to committing adultery only in his mind – whether the convictions on the two rape charges were unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to the inconsistency with the verdicts of acquittal APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – JUDGE’S SUMMING UP - where appellant convicted of rape of stepdaughter – where evidence was led concerning acts of violence towards the complainant and others - whether learned trial judge erred in law by failing to propertly direct the jury as to the limited use they could make of evidence of violent acts by the accused upon the complainant – R v D distinguished CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – OTHER SEX OFFENDERS – appellant convicted of two counts of rape of his stepdaughter and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment – whether sentence manifestly excessive Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied KRM v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 550, followed Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, applied R v D [2001] QCA 256; CA No 16 of 2001, 29 June 2001, distinguished R v Maddox [1998] QCA 413; CA No 299 of 1998, 4 December 1998, applied R v Sakail [1993] 1 Qd R 312, considered
COUNSEL:	K M McGinness for the appellant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent