R v Rose - [2003] QCA 534

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Rose [2003] QCA 534
PARTIES: R
v
ROSE, Scott Andrew
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 292 of 2003 DC No 116 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED EX 1 December 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 1 December 2003
JUDGES: Davies and Williams JJA and McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of serious assault – where appellant spat in face of police officer – where two police officers who were present at the scene provided written statements – where statements had similarities – whether there was such similarity that the jury ought to have had doubts about police officers’ reliability – whether factual inconsistencies in statements made verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, cited
COUNSEL: D R Lynch for the appellant
D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Clewett Corser & Drummond for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The appellant was convicted in the District

the application of principles enunciated by the High Court in	10
M v. The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.
The background to the charges is as follows. Police Officers
Deacon and McKinnon had occasion to visit premises in the
early afternoon of 17 November 2002. They there saw the	20
appellant and a group of persons drinking in the front yard.
Whilst those police officers were speaking to some members of the group the appellant became abusive. He swore at them and it is clear that he used abusive and obscene language. The
police warned him to mind his language but he replied with	30
another outburst of obscene language. He then walked towards the back of the house. The police officers followed him intending to arrest him for using insulting language.
The appellant was ultimately apprehended at the rear of the	40
house and after some minor struggling began to walk, with a
police officer on either side, towards the front of the house
and the roadway. It is sufficient to say that as the group of three - the two police officers and the appellant - approached a small opening between the side fence and a fence running at	50
to fall to the ground and there was some further struggling.

Court at Toowoomba on two counts of serious assault. He
appeals against the conviction on the ground that the verdicts
of guilty should be set aside as unsafe and unsatisfactory in

right angles to it, the appellant caused himself and McKinnon first count of assault. I have used that rather neutral language to describe what happened…

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 Rose

Details

AGLC: R v Rose [2003] QCA 534
Case: [2003] QCA 534
Decision Date: 1/12/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rose involved the appellant, who was convicted of a serious assault. The incident occurred when the appellant spat in the face of a police officer. The conviction was challenged on appeal, with the appellant arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and insupportable due to the similarity in the written statements provided by two police officers who were present at the scene. The appeal centred on whether the similarities in the statements were so significant that the jury should have had doubts about the reliability of the police officers' accounts and whether the factual inconsistencies in the statements rendered the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court examined the nature of the appeal, which focused on the reliability and consistency of the police officers' statements. The central legal issue was whether the similarities in the statements were so pronounced that the jury should have been alerted to potential issues of reliability, and if the inconsistencies in the statements were so significant that they undermined the safety and satisfaction of the verdict. The court had to determine whether these factors warranted a new trial or an appeal against the conviction.

The court ultimately dismissed the appeal against the conviction. It found that while there were similarities and inconsistencies in the police officers' statements, these did not reach the threshold required to undermine the verdict's safety and satisfaction. The court was satisfied that the jury was properly directed and that the evidence, when considered as a whole, was sufficient to support the conviction. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction remained intact.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction, meaning that the original conviction of the appellant stood affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

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 Rose [2003] QCA 534
PARTIES:	R v ROSE, Scott Andrew (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 292 of 2003 DC No 116 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED EX	1 December 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 December 2003
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of serious assault – where appellant spat in face of police officer – where two police officers who were present at the scene provided written statements – where statements had similarities – whether there was such similarity that the jury ought to have had doubts about police officers’ reliability – whether factual inconsistencies in statements made verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, cited
COUNSEL:	D R Lynch for the appellant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Clewett Corser & Drummond for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent