R v Riley - [1992] QCA 348

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 348

PINCUS JA
MOYNIHAN J

AMBROSE J

CA No 155 of 1992

THE QUEEN

LAWRENCE JAMES RILEY	Appellant
BRISBANE ..DATE 07/09/92
JUDGMENT

070992 against sentence. He was convicted of a number of offences all relating to the same series of incidents. They were burglary, deprivation of liberty, indecent treatment of a child under 16 and rape.

The circumstances in which he was guilty of these offences need not be mentioned in detail at this stage, because the only point taken on the appeal against conviction is that, so it is asserted, a member of the jury had conversation with a police officer involved in the case. Specifically, the allegation is that one Tracy Yvonne Pearson, during a period in which the trial was adjourned, observed a police officer, whose name is Det Sgt Lesley Mervyn Hopkins, in conversation with a member of the jury.

The deponent gave evidence by affidavit and further evidence orally in chief and was cross- examined; it became fairly plain that the deponent was not really able to swear definitely that Hopkins did confer with a member of the jury. The ground was not in substance pressed and it seems to me unnecessary to say anything more about it, other than it is not made out and the appeal against conviction must fail.

Mr Nase, who appeared for the appellant, then went on to deal with the application for leave to appeal against sentence and it is necessary to deal with that in somewhat more detail.

The offences with which the Court is concerned began when the applicant came to a house in which a 15 year old complainant was asleep. He had some alcohol taken. He came into the girl’s bedroom carrying a small hammer, touched her face with the hammer and threatened her with death if she screamed.

He directed her to get out of bed, took her out of the house and ascertained her age, which she said correctly was 15, and then physically restrained, she walked with him some distance, during which time the applicant mentioned other offences he had allegedly committed, such as murder and robbery. He claimed also to have kidnapped a girl, but killed her when she "dobbed him in".

After travelling some distance, the applicant pushed the girl back, removed her shorts and shirts and inserted a finger into her vagina. She objected, but he persisted and then discontinued, saying he "[couldn’t] do it". She clothed herself and still under restraint, she accompanied him across fields, went to his parent’s house, where he feigned a burglary. The applicant threatened to kill the girl if she made a noise.

From the house and a nearby shed, he obtained a blanket, a torch and a piece of rope. The two then went some distance further, travelling through scrub, and he again spoke of having killed people. They reached a clearing. The applicant spread out a blanket, lit a fire and had a smoke. He…

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 Riley

Details

AGLC: R v Riley [1992] QCA 348
Case: [1992] QCA 348
Decision Date: 7/09/1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. Lawrence James Riley, the appellant, Lawrence James Riley, appealed against his conviction and sentence. Riley was found guilty of multiple offences including burglary, deprivation of liberty, indecent treatment of a child under 16, and rape. The appeal against conviction centred on an alleged improper communication between a member of the jury and a police officer involved in the case, Det Sgt Lesley Mervyn Hopkins. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that such a conversation occurred, and thus the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Regarding the appeal against sentence, Riley's counsel argued that the sentence was excessive and should have been around 10 years, whereas the prosecutor contended that the sentence was appropriate and could have been higher. The court examined the severity of the crimes, Riley's extensive criminal history, and the need for deterrence. The judges concluded that the sentence of concurrent terms, totalling 29 years, was reasonably appropriate. The court rejected the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, affirming the trial judge's imposition.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Pincus JA, Moynihan J, and Ambrose J, unanimously agreed on the orders. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders