R v SBL

Case [2009] QCA 130

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SBL [2009] QCA 130

PARTIES:

R
v
SBL
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 191 of 2008
DC No 81 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gympie

DELIVERED ON:

22 May 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2009

JUDGES:

Chesterman JA, Wilson and Applegarth JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR UNSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – where appellant was charged with five counts of sexual offences against the same complainant – where the first two counts related to alleged events on one night and the third, fourth and fifth counts related to alleged events on the following night – where the appellant was convicted on the first two counts and acquitted of the other counts – whether the jury’s verdicts on the first two counts were unreasonable due to inconsistency with the verdicts of acquittal on the other counts

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – where credibility and reliability of complainant in issue – where the trial judge did not give a Markuleski direction – where the trial judge gave other directions to the jury to the effect that it was critical for the jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant was truthful and reliable in her evidence about the sexual activities that she alleged took place between her and the appellant – where Markuleski direction was not sought at trial – whether the failure to give a Markuleski direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – whether the trial judge’s directions were likely to have confused the jury into thinking that a verdict of not guilty could not be delivered in respect of alternative offences open on the first two counts

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E

Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 12, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, applied
MFA v The Queen (2001) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied
R v CX[2006] QCA 409, considered
R v Conway (2005) 157 A Crim R 474; [2005] QCA 194, cited
R v Ford[2006] QCA 142, applied
R v Girgines, unreported, Victorian Court of Appeal, No 233 of 1995, 26 March 1996, cited
R v KET [1998] VSCA 73, cited
R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435; [2005] QCA 368, cited
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; [2001] NSWCCA 290, considered
R v Smillie (2002) 134 A Crim R 100; [2002] QCA 341, cited
R v Sparks[2005] QCA 435, cited
R v…

Continue reading R v SBL

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v SBL [2009] QCA 130
Case
[2009] QCA 130
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SBL, was convicted on two counts of sexual offences against a single complainant, but acquitted on three other counts relating to different events. SBL appealed against the conviction, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the acquittal on the other counts. The appellant also contended that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the complainant's credibility were deficient, particularly in not providing a Markuleski direction. SBL argued this omission led to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, SBL suggested that the trial judge's instructions may have confused the jury about the possibility of acquitting on alternative charges.

The court examined whether the jury's acquittal on three counts while convicting on two others constituted an unreasonable or unsupportable verdict. The court considered the evidence presented and the jury's role in assessing credibility and determining guilt. Furthermore, the court scrutinised whether the absence of a Markuleski direction, which pertains to the reliability of a single complainant's evidence, was a significant error. The court also evaluated if the trial judge's directions could have misled the jury about the permissible range of verdicts for the charges in question.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the jury's verdict, although seemingly inconsistent, was within their purview as they were entitled to evaluate the evidence presented for each count separately. The court held that the trial judge's directions, while not perfect, did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the jury understood the necessity to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's credibility and that the absence of a Markuleski direction did not prejudice the fairness of the trial.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original conviction on the two counts. The court determined that the jury's verdicts, though seemingly inconsistent, were not unreasonable and that any deficiencies in the trial judge's directions did not lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.