R v SCF - [2014] QCA 95

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SCF [2014] QCA 95

PARTIES:

R
v
SCF
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 241 of 2013
CA No 315 of 2013
DC No 156 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered ex tempore on 31 March 2014
Reasons delivered 2 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and A Lyons and Applegarth JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Delivered ex tempore on 31 March 2014:

1.        The appeal against conviction is allowed.

2.        The verdict of guilty is set aside.

3.        A verdict of not guilty is substituted.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of two counts of rape and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 – where the appellant was in a relationship with the mother of the complainant – where the complainant gave varying accounts as to where the incident occurred and the precise sequence of the allege offences – where the complainant’s Facebook entries seriously undermined her credibility – whether it was open for the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offences – whether the verdict was unreasonable

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E

R v PAH[2008] QCA 265, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

S R Lewis for the appellant/applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Ann Lyons J's reasons for allowing the appeal, quashing the conviction and directing that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered.

ANN LYONS J:Grounds of appeal

The appellant was convicted on 5 September 2013 after a three day trial in the Beenleigh District Court of two counts of rape and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16. On 13 November 2013 he was sentenced to three years imprisonment on the rape counts and 15 months imprisonment on the indecent treatment counts. All sentences were to be served concurrently and pre-sentence custody of 358 days was declared as time served.

The appellant appeals against his conviction pursuant to s 668E of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) on the ground that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and against the weight of the evidence before the jury. Whilst an application for leave to appeal against sentence was filed that ground was not argued on the appeal.

On 31 March 2014 the Court was satisfied that the jury could not be satisfied of the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt due to serious concerns the Court had in relation…

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 SCF

Details

AGLC: R v SCF [2014] QCA 95
Case: [2014] QCA 95
Decision Date: 31 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SCF, was found guilty in the County Court of two counts of rape and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16. The complainant was in a relationship with the appellant’s partner. The incidents in question were alleged to have taken place at varying locations, with the complainant providing differing accounts of the sequence of events. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsustainable considering the evidence presented at trial. The court had to assess the credibility of the complainant and the consistency of her accounts, particularly in light of certain Facebook entries which cast doubt on her reliability. The court also had to determine whether it was open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offences.

The court found that the complainant's varying accounts and the Facebook entries seriously undermined her credibility. The court concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the verdict was unreasonable. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a verdict of not guilty was substituted.

Orders:
1. The appeal against conviction is allowed.
2. The verdict of guilty is set aside.
3. A verdict of not guilty is substituted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore on 31 March 2014:

1. The appeal against conviction is allowed.

2. The verdict of guilty is set aside.

3. A verdict of not guilty is substituted.

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 SCF [2014] QCA 95
PARTIES:	R v SCF (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 241 of 2013 CA No 315 of 2013 DC No 156 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	Orders delivered ex tempore on 31 March 2014 Reasons delivered 2 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 March 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and A Lyons and Applegarth JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Delivered ex tempore on 31 March 2014: 1. The appeal against conviction is allowed. 2. The verdict of guilty is set aside. 3. A verdict of not guilty is substituted.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of two counts of rape and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 – where the appellant was in a relationship with the mother of the complainant – where the complainant gave varying accounts as to where the incident occurred and the precise sequence of the allege offences – where the complainant’s Facebook entries seriously undermined her credibility – whether it was open for the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offences – whether the verdict was unreasonable Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E R v PAH[2008] QCA 265, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	S R Lewis for the appellant/applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent