R v S - [2004] QCA 3 | CaseChat AU

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v S [2004] QCA 3

PARTIES:

R
v
S
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 293 of 2003
DC No 260 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

3 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 February 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Davies and McPherson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULTS – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where appellant pleaded not guilty to four counts of indecent treatment of a girl under 14 years, two counts of indecent treatment of a boy under 14 years, five counts of rape and one count of an unnatural offence – where child was under the appellant’s care – where one complainants’ evidence supported by the other – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where strong case against the appellant – where statements capable of amounting to admissions by appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CHARACTER OF OFFENCE – where applicant convicted on various sexual offences and sentenced to effective term of ten years imprisonment – where applicant 26 to 32 at time of commission of offences and 48 at time of sentence – where one complainant intellectually disadvantaged – whether sentence manifestly excessive in all circumstances

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The appellant pleaded not guilty in the District Court at Maroochydore to four counts of indecent treatment of a girl under 14 years, counts 1, 6, 8 and 11; two counts of indecent treatment of a boy under 14 years, counts 2 and 9; five counts of rape, counts 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 and one count of an unnatural offence, count 4. He was acquitted on count 2 but convicted on all other counts. He was sentenced to various periods of imprisonment on the assortment of offences but effectively to a period of 10 years imprisonment.

The appellant, who appears for himself on this appeal, contends that the convictions are "unsafe and unsatisfactory and not according to law", and that the sentences are manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. These contentions are made in the notice of appeal. He has not complied with the practice direction in that he did not file a written outline of argument prior to the hearing of the appeal,…

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 S

Details

AGLC: R v S [2004] QCA 3
Case: [2004] QCA 3
Decision Date: 3 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted on multiple counts of sexual offences, including indecent treatment of a child, rape, and an unnatural offence, arising from the abuse of two children under the appellant's care. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court found the evidence against the appellant to be compelling, with one complainant's testimony corroborated by the other. The appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable, but the court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

The court examined the grounds of the appeal, focusing on the sufficiency of the evidence and the reliability of the witnesses. The evidence from the two complainants was deemed reliable and consistent, and the court found that the appellant's admissions during the trial supported the allegations. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and dismissed the appeal against conviction. The court also considered the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the gravity of the offences committed against vulnerable victims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 S [2004] QCA 3
PARTIES:	R v S (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 293 of 2003 DC No 260 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	3 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 February 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and Davies and McPherson JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULTS – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where appellant pleaded not guilty to four counts of indecent treatment of a girl under 14 years, two counts of indecent treatment of a boy under 14 years, five counts of rape and one count of an unnatural offence – where child was under the appellant’s care – where one complainants’ evidence supported by the other – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where strong case against the appellant – where statements capable of amounting to admissions by appellant CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CHARACTER OF OFFENCE – where applicant convicted on various sexual offences and sentenced to effective term of ten years imprisonment – where applicant 26 to 32 at time of commission of offences and 48 at time of sentence – where one complainant intellectually disadvantaged – whether sentence manifestly excessive in all circumstances
COUNSEL:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf R G Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent