R v SDD

[2018] QCA 280

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SDD [2018] QCA 280

PARTIES:

R
v
SDD
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 62 of 2018
DC No 72 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maryborough – Date of Conviction: 9 February 2018; Date of Sentence: 9 February 2018 (Reid DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

19 October 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson JA and Boddice J

ORDERS:

1.   Leave be granted to adduce the further evidence.

2.   The appeal be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES – GENERALLY – where the female complainant was a child, aged between 14 and 16 years of age, at the time of the offending – where the appellant was the complainant’s step-father – where the appellant was charged with five counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under care, five counts of observations in breach of privacy, and three counts of sexual assault, all of which were Domestic Violence Offences – where the appellant had massaged the complainant on occasion, and had viewed her naked in the shower

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant plead not guilty to counts 1-13 – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of counts 5 and 6, relating to viewing the complainant naked in the shower, and acquitted the appellant of all other counts – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt, beyond reasonable double, in respect of counts 5 and 6 – where the household was one where practical jokes were played – where the appellant claims, in respect of counts 5 and 6, the relevant bathroom door had a lock the complainant could have used, but did not – whether the complainant was credible – where the complainant gave consistent evidence in her interview with police and subsequently at trial – where the complainant’s evidence was supported by the evidence of her mother – whether the jury considered counts 1-4 and 7-13 could have been explained by accident, or practical jokes, such that they could not be satisfied of the appellant’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt – whether the jury’s verdicts were materially affected by them being inadvertently shown a photograph on the visualiser during the evidence of the complainant’s mother

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of counts 5 and 6, and acquitted of all other counts – whether the jury’s verdicts on counts 5 and 6 were inconsistent with the verdicts on each of the other counts – where counts 2-6 involved the appellant observing the complainant naked in the shower – where counts 2, 3, and 4 involved the appellant throwing…