R v Rankin

[2000] QCA 54

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rankin [2000] QCA 54

PARTIES:

R
v
RANKIN, Robin Leo
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 322 of 1999
DC No 28 of 1999

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

3 March 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2000

JUDGES:

Davies and Thomas JJA, Byrne J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction 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 – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where appellant convicted of two offences of indecent dealing with a child under 12 – where inconsistency between complainant’s evidence and original complaint – whether appropriate direction to jury where evidence of uncharged incidents – where no request by  defence for warning

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – SIMILAR FACTS – ADMISSIBILITY - SEXUAL OFFENCES – permissible use of evidence of uncharged incidents – where defence failed to object to evidence – where no corroboration – where no evidence led by accused – whether evidence could be used to indicate true nature of relationship

Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106, considered
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, referred to
R v Mazzolini [1999] VSCA 150; 23 September 1999, referred to
R v S (1998) 103 A Crim R 101, referred to
R v Vonarx VSCA No 181 of 1995, 15 November 1995, considered
Robinson v The Queen [1999] HCA 42; 73 ALJR 1314, distinguished

COUNSEL:

Mrs K McGinness for the applicant/appellant
Mr R Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. THE COURT:  After a trial, the appellant was convicted of two offences of indecently dealing with a child under the age of 12.  Apart from the contention that the verdicts were unreasonable, the grounds of appeal concern the summing-up.

1. The appellant was born in 1964.  The complainant was born on 23 May 1981.  The trial commenced on 24 August 1999 and concluded the following day.  The complainant was therefore then 18.  She was younger when the charged incidents are said to have occurred: the first between 22 May 1991 and 23 May 1993; the second between one December 1992 and 10 March 1993.

1. The complainant met the appellant in 1989 at about the time he began to live with the complainant’s mother.  Afterwards, the complainant told the jury, the appellant “used to try and touch me” when her mother was away.  In response to the prosecutor’s question whether she remembered any such “sessions” “specifically”, the complainant first spoke of an incident when she was eight or nine.  One night, after returning from the toilet, she got onto a mattress that she shared with her brother.  In those days, the appellant and the complainant’s mother occupied a…