R v Rax

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v RAX [2017] QCA 133

PARTIES:

R
v
RAX
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 291 of 2016
DC No 224 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 13 October 2016

DELIVERED ON:

16 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2017

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and North and Henry JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – AVERMENTS – UNCERTAINTY, DUPLICITY AND AMBIGUITY – DUPLICITY – where appellant found guilty by jury after trial of unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm and two counts of rape – where appellant argued that a miscarriage of justice arose on the basis that appellant was convicted of duplicitous charges – where issue of duplicity not raised below – where court held the meaning attributable to particulars can be informed by the evidence adduced and trial judge’s directions below – where the court held there was no duplicity

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – whether or not the trial judge gave inadequate directions about the complainant’s unresponsive answers – where the court held the direction given was adequate and involved no risk of a miscarriage of justice – where appeal dismissed

Criminal Code (Qld), s 573
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld), s 4A
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132B

Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467; [1937] HCA 77, cited
Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460; [1973] HCA 30, cited
Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531; [2012] HCA 29, applied
R v Chen[1997] QCA 355, applied
R v Juraszko [1967] Qd R 128, applied
R v S [2000] 1 Qd R 445; [1998] QCA 271, applied
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the appellant
N Rees for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

SOFRONOFF P: I agree with the reasons of Henry J and with the order his Honour proposes.

NORTH J: I have read the reasons of Henry J. His Honour’s assessment and evaluation of the whole of the evidence accords with mine. For the reasons given by his Honour I agree with the order he proposes.

HENRY J: The appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and two counts of rape upon his estranged partner. The offences were committed in a single course of conduct overnight on 4 February 2016 at the appellant’s residence in Home Hill.

The appellant appeals his conviction on three grounds:

1. counts one, two and three…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Rax, the appellant was convicted by a jury following a trial on charges of unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm and two counts of rape. The primary contention was whether the appellant's conviction was marred by a miscarriage of justice due to the duplicitous nature of the charges. This argument was raised for the first time on appeal, as the issue of duplicity had not been addressed during the trial. The court examined the particulars of the charges in the context of the evidence presented and the directions given by the trial judge, ultimately determining that the charges were not duplicitous.

Further, the appellant argued that the trial judge provided inadequate directions regarding the unresponsive answers of the complainant, which could have prejudiced the jury. The court reviewed the directions given by the trial judge and concluded that they were adequate and did not pose a risk of a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the trial judge's handling of the situation was appropriate and did not contribute to any error that could have affected the outcome of the trial.

Based on the court's analysis, the appeal was dismissed. The court held that there was no error in the trial process that warranted a new trial or appeal. The particulars of the charges were sufficiently clear, and the trial judge's directions were adequate. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v RAX [2017] QCA 133
PARTIES:	R v RAX (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 291 of 2016 DC No 224 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 13 October 2016
DELIVERED ON:	16 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 May 2017
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and North and Henry JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – AVERMENTS – UNCERTAINTY, DUPLICITY AND AMBIGUITY – DUPLICITY – where appellant found guilty by jury after trial of unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm and two counts of rape – where appellant argued that a miscarriage of justice arose on the basis that appellant was convicted of duplicitous charges – where issue of duplicity not raised below – where court held the meaning attributable to particulars can be informed by the evidence adduced and trial judge’s directions below – where the court held there was no duplicity CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – whether or not the trial judge gave inadequate directions about the complainant’s unresponsive answers – where the court held the direction given was adequate and involved no risk of a miscarriage of justice – where appeal dismissed Criminal Code (Qld), s 573 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld), s 4A Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132B Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467; [1937] HCA 77, cited Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460; [1973] HCA 30, cited Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531; [2012] HCA 29, applied R v Chen[1997] QCA 355, applied R v Juraszko [1967] Qd R 128, applied R v S [2000] 1 Qd R 445; [1998] QCA 271, applied SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	A W Collins for the appellant N Rees for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent