R v S - [1996] QCA 93

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 093
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 233 of 1995

Brisbane [R. v. S]

THE QUEEN

v.
S

Appellant

Davies J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Fryberg J.

Judgment delivered 10/04/1996

Joint reasons for judgment of Davies and McPherson JJ.A.; separate reasons of

Fryberg J. concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL ALLOWED. VERDICT SET ASIDE. NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - administering a stupefying drug with intent to commit an indictable offence - rape - incest - child under 16 - unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict - meaning of "administered stupefying drugs" - corroboration - directions to jury.
Counsel:	Mr. T. Glynn for the appellant Mr. M. Byrne Q.C. for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the appellant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date:	14 August 1995

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DAVIES AND McPHERSON JJ.A.

Judgment delivered the 10th day of April 1996

The appellant was convicted after a trial in the District Court on 24 May last year of administering a stupefying drug with intent to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence namely rape. The offence was alleged to have occurred in 1991. The alleged victim was his own daughter who was then either 13 or 14. He had been charged with seven offences, all against his daughter; five of rape, one of incest and the one on which he was convicted which was the fourth of the seven counts. The fifth and sixth were alternatively rape and incest being the act of penetration in consequence of the administration of the stupefying drug. The jury disagreed on all counts other than the one on which the appellant was convicted and there will be a retrial on those counts.

It was common ground between counsel on the hearing of this appeal that the likely explanation for disagreements on counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and a guilty verdict on count 4 is that the learned trial Judge told the jury that corroboration was necessary in respect of the former and not necessary in respect of the latter. There was no corroboration on any of the counts.

The appellant appealed against his conviction, in effect, on two grounds. The first was that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. In the alternative it was submitted that the trial Judge misdirected the jury in a number of respects. As will appear from what we say below there is no substance in the former contention except to the extent that it is consequent upon the success of the latter. It is therefore convenient to discuss first the criticisms of the learned trial Judge's directions.

The grounds on which, it was said, the learned trial Judge erred were:
(a) failing to give the jury any guidance as to the meaning of the phrase "administered stupefying drugs";
(b) directing the jury that "if they accepted the complainant's evidence of the acts of the night in question then they…

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 [1996] QCA 93
Case: [1996] QCA 93
Decision Date: 10/04/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v S, the appellant was convicted of administering a stupefying drug with intent to commit an indictable offence, specifically incest and rape of a child under 16. The case was heard in the appellate court, which reviewed the conviction and sought to determine the correctness of the legal issues raised by the appellant.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the meaning of "administering stupefying drugs" were appropriate and sufficient. The appellant argued that the directions were insufficient, as they did not properly define the term and potentially led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. Additionally, the court had to consider the need for corroboration in cases involving sexual offences and whether the trial judge correctly advised the jury on this matter.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate in defining the term "administering stupefying drugs." The court held that the term was not properly defined, which could have led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge did not correctly advise the jury on the need for corroboration in sexual offence cases. As a result, the appellate court quashed the appellant's conviction and ordered a retrial. The court found that the errors in the trial judge's directions and advice on corroboration were significant enough to potentially affect the outcome of the trial, and therefore, a new trial was necessary to ensure a fair and just result.

Orders