R v SBO - [2009] QCA 230

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SBO [2009] QCA 230

PARTIES:

R
v
SBO
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 223 of 2008
DC No 203 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

14 August 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Chesterman JA
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 – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – the appellant was found guilty after a trial of five counts of rape and sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment – the complainant was his step-daughter – the appellant appeals against his conviction on the grounds that the guilty verdicts were "unsafe and unsatisfactory" – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 210, s 349

MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v M [1997] 1 Qd R 404; [1996] QCA 230, cited
R v Sakail [1993] 1 Qd R 312, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
G P Cash for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: The appellant first pleaded not guilty on 3 October 2006 in the District Court at Townsville to one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 as a guardian (count 1) and five counts of rape (counts 2 to 6). The evidence of the complainant child, the appellant's step-daughter, was then pre-recorded. He again pleaded not guilty on 4 August 2008 when a jury was empanelled. On 7 August 2008, after a four day trial, the jury found him not guilty on count 1 and guilty on all remaining counts. He was sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment on each of counts 2 to 6. He appeals only against his convictions on the grounds that the guilty verdicts were "unsafe and unsatisfactory".

I would dismiss the appeal. These are my reasons.

The appellant is self-represented in this appeal. His handwritten outline of argument emphasises portions of the complainant's evidence which he contends demonstrate such patent unreliability that a reasonable jury could not accept it. He also emphasises what he says are inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and the evidence of the complainant's mother (the appellant's wife at the time of the offences), the complainant's sister and the medical evidence.

In determining this appeal, it is necessary to review the significant evidence before the jury. The complainant's mother gave the following evidence. The complainant was born in 1991. The mother formed a relationship with the appellant when the complainant was about four years old. They began to live together when the…

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 SBO

Details

AGLC: R v SBO [2009] QCA 230
Case: [2009] QCA 230
Decision Date: 14 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v SBO, the appellant was convicted of five counts of rape involving his step-daughter and sentenced to a total of seven and a half years imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his conviction on the basis that the verdicts were "unsafe and unsatisfactory." The appeal was heard by the court of appeal which had to determine whether the jury was justified in being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt.

The court considered the evidence presented at the trial, including the complainant's testimony, and the credibility of the appellant's defence. The court held that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt based on the evidence presented. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts and that the jury had not erred in their consideration of the evidence.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal against the conviction. The appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the jury had properly considered the evidence and had reached a verdict that was supported by the evidence. The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

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 SBO [2009] QCA 230
PARTIES:	R v SBO (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 223 of 2008 DC No 203 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	14 August 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 July 2009
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Chesterman JA 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 – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – the appellant was found guilty after a trial of five counts of rape and sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment – the complainant was his step-daughter – the appellant appeals against his conviction on the grounds that the guilty verdicts were "unsafe and unsatisfactory" – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 210, s 349 MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v M [1997] 1 Qd R 404; [1996] QCA 230, cited R v Sakail [1993] 1 Qd R 312, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf G P Cash for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent