R v S - [1997] QCA 287

[1997] QCA 287

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ
WILLIAMS J
BYRNE J

CA No 186 of 1997

THE QUEEN

S Appellant

BRISBANE

DATE 25/07/97

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS J: As the result of events which occurred on the evening of 16/17 June 1996 the appellant was charged with a number of counts in the District Court. There was one count of unlawful wounding, two counts of unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm, one count of deprivation of liberty, two counts of indecent assault involving oral intercourse, two counts of indecent assault involving anal intercourse and two counts of rape.

When the appellant was arraigned he pleaded guilty to the offence of unlawful detention. He also pleaded guilty to one of the charges of unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm. It can be said - and the significance of this will become evident in a moment - that the charge of assault occasioning bodily harm to which he pleaded guilty was a catch-all covering all the assaults not covered by the other count on the indictment.

It can also be said in broad terms that the particulars of the charges indicated that counts 2, 3 and 4 related to oral intercourse, anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse at an early stage in the evening's proceedings. Counts 7, 8 and 9 related to similar charges occurring at a point of time after, on the complainant's evidence, her legs had been tied with an electrical cord.

The complainant, one R, and the appellant had been living in a de facto relationship on and off over a period of time. For some time prior to 16 June 1996 they were living apart but some social contact continued. There was apparently a domestic violence order in place. On 16 June the appellant and the complainant, it is agreed, met at the Waterloo Hotel and there was some general discussion which ultimately resulted in an agreement between the two whereby some seafood and a bottle of bourbon was purchased and they returned to the complainant's home to consume that food and drink. According to the appellant's evidence some marijuana was also smoked in the early stages of the evening.

There seems no doubt on the accounts given by both the appellant and the complainant that after the food and drink had been consumed they were sitting or lying on a mattress in the lounge room. According to the complainant there was an argument instigated by the appellant against the background of his allegations that she had been associating with other men. According to the complainant that led to her being slapped around the head and her being pinned to the mattress.

The evidence given by the complainant was that the appellant then produced a red Swiss pocket knife and made a threat to disfigure her face. Her evidence is that he then cut her above the left eyebrow with that knife. He then used the knife by placing it in her ear and under her nipples. It would appear that,…

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 [1997] QCA 287
Case: [1997] QCA 287
Decision Date: 25 July 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v S, the Court of Appeal heard an appeal against conviction and sentence by the appellant, who had been found guilty of multiple offences against the complainant, including unlawful wounding, deprivation of liberty, and various sexual offences. The events in question took place on 16/17 June 1996, and the appellant was arraigned on multiple charges arising from that night. He pleaded guilty to unlawful detention and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, with the latter being a catch-all for assaults not covered by other counts. The central dispute centred on whether the appellant's convictions were safe and satisfactory, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the appellant's convictions were proper given the evidence presented, and whether the sentence imposed was just and proportionate to the severity of the crimes committed. The appellant argued that his legal representation was inadequate, claiming that his instructions to subpoena certain witnesses and places were not followed. He also contended that his barrister was inexperienced and failed to ask critical questions during the trial. The Crown, however, maintained that the jury had carefully considered the evidence and that the convictions were justified.

The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the evidence and the arguments presented, found that the jury had indeed given the appellant the benefit of doubt where appropriate, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The confirmation of the complainant's injuries by medical reports and the appellant's guilty plea to unlawful deprivation of liberty reinforced the safety and satisfaction of the convictions. Regarding the sentence, the Court acknowledged the significant criminal history of the appellant and the severity of the crimes, concluding that a sentence in the range of 10 to 12 years was appropriate. The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and denied the application for leave to appeal against sentence, thereby affirming the original judgement and sentence.

Orders