R v SCY - [2018] QCA 44

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SCY [2018] QCA 44

PARTIES:

R
v
SCY
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 205 of 2017
DC No 467 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 7 September 2017 (Dorney QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 November 2017

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Fraser and Gotterson JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child under 16 and three offences of unlawful and indecent dealing with a child under his care – where there was a relatively long delay in complaint – where the trial judge referred to media reports concerning the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse when commenting on delay – where the trial judge directed the jury to scrutinise the complainant’s evidence because of the relatively long delay in complaint – whether the trial judge’s reference to the content of media reports when commenting on delay occasioned a miscarriage of justice

Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, applied

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the appellant
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Groves & Clark Solicitors for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES CJ: I agree with the reasons of Gotterson JA and with the order he proposes.
FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the order proposed by his Honour.
GOTTERSON JA: At a trial over six days in the District Court at Townsville, the appellant, SCY, was found guilty on 4 September 2017 of an offence of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with the complainant, a child under 16 years[1] (Count 1) and three offences of unlawful and indecent dealing with the complainant who was under his care for the time being[2] (Counts 2, 4 and 5). The Count 1 offence was alleged to have occurred between 26 January 2010 and 3 November 2012. The Counts 2, 4 and 5 offences were each alleged to have occurred on a date unknown, in the case of Count 2, between the 26 January 2010 and 1 March 2010; in case of Count 4 between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011; and in the case of Count 5, between 1 June 2011 and 31 August 2011. All offending was alleged to have taken place at Clare.
[1]Criminal Code s 229B(1).
[2]Ibid ss 210(1)(a), (4).
At the same time, the appellant was found not guilty of two counts of rape[3] (Counts 3 and 6), the latter with an additional statement that it was a domestic violence offence.[4] Those counts involved the same complainant. Count 3 was alleged to have taken place on a date unknown…

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 SCY

Details

AGLC: R v SCY [2018] QCA 44
Case: [2018] QCA 44
Decision Date: 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v SCY involved an appeal against a conviction for maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child under 16 and three offences of unlawful and indecent dealing with a child under his care. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the trial judge's reference to media reports concerning the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse when commenting on the delay in complaint led to a miscarriage of justice. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the trial judge's reference to media reports concerning the Royal Commission when commenting on the delay in complaint constituted a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, the court needed to determine if this reference amounted to a misdirection or non-direction that could have impacted the jury's impartiality or the fairness of the trial. Another issue was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury to scrutinise the complainant’s evidence due to the delay in complaint was appropriate and did not prejudice the appellant.

The High Court found that the trial judge's reference to media reports, although unfortunate, did not amount to a misdirection or non-direction that would have led to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the trial judge’s comments were incidental and did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the direction to the jury to scrutinise the complainant’s evidence due to the delay was deemed appropriate given the circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court's final order was to dismiss the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court.

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.

CITATION:	R v SCY [2018] QCA 44
PARTIES:	R v SCY (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 205 of 2017 DC No 467 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 7 September 2017 (Dorney QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	23 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 November 2017
JUDGES:	Holmes CJ and Fraser and Gotterson JJA
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was convicted of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child under 16 and three offences of unlawful and indecent dealing with a child under his care – where there was a relatively long delay in complaint – where the trial judge referred to media reports concerning the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse when commenting on delay – where the trial judge directed the jury to scrutinise the complainant’s evidence because of the relatively long delay in complaint – whether the trial judge’s reference to the content of media reports when commenting on delay occasioned a miscarriage of justice Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, applied
COUNSEL:	M J Copley QC for the appellant P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Groves & Clark Solicitors for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent