APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED, THE
APPEAL ALLOWED, AND THE SENTENCES IMPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURT
SET ASIDE.
THE APPELLANT IS SENTENCED TO CONCURRENT TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT
OF FOUR YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE OF ADMINISTERING A STUPEFYING DRUG
AND ONE YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE OF INDECENT ASSAULT.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - similar facts - appeal against conviction and sentence for administering a stupefying drug or thing and indecent assault - appellant laced complainant’s drink with drug which induced rapid sleep and then undressed her - three witnesses gave accounts of similar experiences with appellant - whether that evidence should have been excluded due to possibility of concoction - whether sentence excessive - appellant sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for administering a stupefying drug and two years’ imprisonment for indecent assault - whether sentence reflected incorrect regard to appellant’s misconduct towards women other than the complainant - appellant 35 years old and no prior criminal history - appellant sentenced under s. 316 of the Code when he could also have been sentenced under s. 218 (1)(c) which provides for lesser maximum penalty.
R. v. Ananthanarayanan (1994) 98 Cr.App.R. 1 DPP v. P. (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 267 R. v. H(A) (1995) 2 Cr.App.R. 437 Hoch v. R. (1988) 165 C.L.R. 292 Pfennig v. R. (1995) 182 C.L.R. 461 R. v. Ryder (1994) 98 Cr.App.R. 242 W C.A. No. 62 of 1996, 20 August 1996 Youngson C.A. No. 62 of 1993, 19 August 1993
Counsel:	Mr J. Griffin Q.C. for the appellant. Mr P. Ridgeway for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Witheriff Nyst for the appellant. Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	29 October 1996

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P. AND DAVIES J.A.
Judgment delivered 4 April 1997

The appellant has appealed against his conviction in the District Court at Southport on 1 August 1996 of offences of administering a stupefying drug or thing to Simone Lisa Trees and unlawfully and indecently assaulting Ms Trees in Cairns on or about 6 April 1994. The appellant has also applied for leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment for six years in respect of the first offence and two years in respect of the second offence. Although a number of grounds were set out in the appellant’s notice of appeal against conviction, the appeal was confined by both the appellant’s written outline and oral submissions to the proposition that evidence related to incidents involving three witnesses, Mss. Portelli, Reed and Cohen, ought not to have been received, and the reception of that evidence rendered the convictions of…

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 Robertson

Details

AGLC: R v Robertson [1997] QCA 63
Case: [1997] QCA 63
Decision Date: 4/04/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court is from Robertson, who was convicted and sentenced for administering a stupefying drug and committing an indecent assault. The court was required to determine the admissibility of evidence relating to similar incidents involving the appellant and other women, as well as the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The appellant argued that the evidence of similar incidents should not have been admitted as it was too prejudicial and there was a risk of concoction. The court found that the evidence was relevant and admissible as it demonstrated a pattern of behaviour and was probative of the appellant’s intent and propensity.

The court also considered the appellant’s argument that the sentence was excessive and did not properly reflect the mitigating factors. The court noted that the appellant had no prior criminal history and was 35 years old at the time of sentencing. However, the court found that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court also noted that the appellant was sentenced under section 316 of the Code, which provides for a lesser maximum penalty than section 218(1)(c) that could have also been applied. The court found that the sentence reflected a proper regard to all the circumstances of the case.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appellant’s appeal was dismissed in its entirety. The court found that the evidence of similar incidents was properly admitted and that the sentence was appropriate and reflected a proper regard to all the circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence stood.

Orders