R v Sculac - [2021] QCA 273

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sculac [2021] QCA 273

PARTIES:

R
v
SCULAC, Michael James
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 47 of 2021
DC No 61 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore – Date of Conviction and Sentence: 17 February 2021 (Richards DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 October 2021

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Davis and Williams JJ

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant lured the complainant onto a boat by an offer to sell him methylamphetamine – where the complainant was threatened, struck, tied up, and urinated on – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of torture – whether the learned trial judge failed to direct the jury on whether the first sequence of acts by the appellant or the other co-offenders could constitute the offence of torture – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was found guilty of one count of torture and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with the offence being declared a Serious Violent Offence – whether the making of the declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 320A(2)

R v HAC[2006] QCA 291, cited
R v Ping [2006] 2 Qd R 69; [2005] QCA 472, cited

COUNSEL:

B J Power for the appellant/applicant
N Crane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

SOFRONOFF P: A jury found the appellant guilty on one count of torture. He now appeals that conviction on the ground that the learned trial judge failed to direct the jury in a way that would have excluded from their consideration certain pathways to conviction that were not open.
The complainant, Jonah Betts, was a 21 year old man. He was acquainted with a 19 year old man named Raven O’Hanlon and his girlfriend, Chloe Johnson, who was aged 16. The appellant is Johnson’s father.
Mr Betts was addicted to methylamphetamine and he was homeless. One day, in early March 2019, O’Hanlon invited Betts to sleep overnight in a tent at an encampment on the banks of the Erne River near Noosaville. This camp was only accessible by boat. O’Hanlon lived there with Johnson and the appellant and it was there that Betts met the appellant for the first time. On the following morning Betts left the camp. Later that morning police came to the camp and removed items of property believed to have been stolen. The appellant, O’Hanlon and Johnson were…

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 Sculac

Details

AGLC: R v Sculac [2021] QCA 273
Case: [2021] QCA 273
Decision Date: 10 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sculac, appealed against his conviction for one count of torture and sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The trial had involved allegations that Sculac lured the complainant onto a boat under the guise of selling methylamphetamine, where he and his co-offenders subjected the complainant to threats, physical assault, and degradation. Sculac was found guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment, with the offence declared a Serious Violent Offence. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to direct the jury on whether the initial sequence of acts by Sculac or his co-offenders could constitute the offence of torture, and that the declaration of the offence as a Serious Violent Offence rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court examined the adequacy of the trial judge's directions regarding the constituent acts of torture and whether any failure to direct the jury amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether the sentence, in light of the offence being declared a Serious Violent Offence, was manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge's directions were adequate and did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the elements of the offence of torture and that the jury was properly directed to consider whether the acts committed by Sculac or his co-offenders constituted torture. The court further found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, even when considering the declaration of the offence as a Serious Violent Offence. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

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 Sculac [2021] QCA 273
PARTIES:	R v SCULAC, Michael James (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 47 of 2021 DC No 61 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore – Date of Conviction and Sentence: 17 February 2021 (Richards DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	10 December 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 October 2021
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Davis and Williams JJ
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction be dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant lured the complainant onto a boat by an offer to sell him methylamphetamine – where the complainant was threatened, struck, tied up, and urinated on – where the appellant was found guilty of one count of torture – whether the learned trial judge failed to direct the jury on whether the first sequence of acts by the appellant or the other co-offenders could constitute the offence of torture – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was found guilty of one count of torture and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with the offence being declared a Serious Violent Offence – whether the making of the declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 320A(2) R v HAC[2006] QCA 291, cited R v Ping [2006] 2 Qd R 69; [2005] QCA 472, cited
COUNSEL:	B J Power for the appellant/applicant N Crane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent