R v SCE

Case [2014] QCA 48

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SCE [2014] QCA 48

PARTIES:

R
v
SCE
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 136 of 2013
DC No 1278 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted with various acts of a sexual nature against his stepdaughter, including maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, carnal knowledge and incest – where the offences were alleged to have occurred with a degree of habituality – whether in proving habituality the prosecution was confined to acts under certain counts

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was acquitted of some counts and convicted of others – whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the acquittals

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant contended by inference from a jury note that the jury misapprehended the proof as to the habituality element – where the appellant contended that the trial judge had to direct the jury as to evidence regarding the credit of the complainant – where the appellant contended that the complainant’s evidence was contradictory so that the jury could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the counts on which they convicted – where the appellant contended that he had no case to answer on certain counts – whether any of these situations led to a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 229B
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld), s 2A, s 2A(2)

HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; [1995] HCA 7, cited
R v CAZ [2012] 1 Qd R 440; [2011] QCA 231, cited
R v DAT[2009] QCA 181, cited
R v K (No 2) [1998] 2 Qd R 510; [1996] QCA 514, considered
R v OL[2004] QCA 439, distinguished
R v TAB[2013] QCA 34, cited

COUNSEL:

P Mylne with N Tucker for the appellant
T Fuller for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McKays Solicitors for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. MARGARET McMURDO P:  The appellant was charged with one count of maintaining…

Continue reading R v SCE

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v SCE [2014] QCA 48
Case
[2014] QCA 48
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal arose from a conviction of the appellant, SCE, for various sexual offences against his stepdaughter, including maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship, carnal knowledge, and incest. The offences were alleged to have occurred habitually. The Court of Appeal considered whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable on several grounds, including the habituality of the offences, the inconsistency of the verdicts, and alleged errors in the trial judge’s directions to the jury.

The court examined whether the prosecution was limited to proving habituality only through specific counts, and whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the acquittals. It also assessed the appellant's contention that the jury may have misunderstood the proof regarding habituality and whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on the credibility of the complainant. The court further considered whether the contradictory nature of the complainant’s evidence precluded the jury from being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the counts for which the appellant was convicted, and whether the appellant had no case to answer on certain counts.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the evidence supported the verdicts, and the trial judge's directions were adequate. The court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice, and the verdicts were consistent and reasonable. The court held that the appellant’s arguments did not undermine the jury’s decision, and thus, the appeal was dismissed.

The court made no further orders beyond dismissing the appeal.

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.