R v SDH

Case [2019] QCA 134

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SDH [2019] QCA 134

PARTIES:

R
v
SDH
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 217 of 2018
DC No 412 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 6 August 2018; Date of Sentence: 27 August 2018 (Fantin DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

4 July 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 April 2019

JUDGES:

Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Bowskill J

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2.   Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted of three counts of incest – where the Crown tendered an exhibit for the first time during cross-examination of the appellant – where the learned trial judge also questioned the appellant about the exhibit – whether the Crown impermissibly split its case resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice – whether the learned trial judge unfairly intervened in the trial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the Crown contended all three counts of incest occurred before the victim turned eighteen – where the appellant contended two counts occurred after the victim turned eighteen – whether it was open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that each count occurred within the period charged – whether the verdicts were unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in respect of each of the three counts of incest – where the appellant applies for leave to appeal against sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 222, s 668E

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
Kalbasi v Western Australia (2018) 92 ALJR 305; (2018) 352 ALR 1; [2018] HCA 7, cited
Lane v The Queen (2018) 92 ALJR 689; (2018) 357 ALR 1; [2018] HCA 28, cited
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35, cited
R v BAQ[2005] QCA 31, cited
R v Bauer (2018) 92 ALJR 846; (2018) 359 ALR 359; [2018] HCA 40, cited
R v BZ[2003] QCA 26, cited
R v Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671; [1985] HCA 35, cited
R v Gibb[2018] QCA 120, cited
R v NJ (2008) 189 A Crim R 402; [2008] QCA 331, cited
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited
R v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 299; [2003] HCA 13, cited
R v Tout[2012] QCA 296, cited
R v WN[2005] QCA 359,…

Continue reading R v SDH

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v SDH [2019] QCA 134
Case
[2019] QCA 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SDH, was convicted of three counts of incest and was subsequently sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for each count. The central issue in this case was whether there was a miscarriage of justice during the trial, particularly concerning the introduction of an exhibit and the trial judge’s questioning of the appellant. Additionally, the appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the verdicts were unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, as well as the severity of the sentence imposed. The court had to determine whether the Crown’s presentation of evidence and the trial judge’s conduct prejudiced the appellant’s right to a fair trial and whether the jury’s verdicts were reasonable in light of the evidence presented.

The court examined whether the Crown’s introduction of an exhibit during cross-examination and the subsequent questioning by the trial judge constituted an impermissible splitting of the case, leading to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also assessed the trial judge’s interventions to ensure they did not unfairly influence the proceedings or the jury’s decision. Furthermore, the court evaluated the evidence to ascertain if it supported the jury’s conclusion that each count of incest occurred within the period charged, despite the appellant’s contention that two of the acts occurred after the victim turned eighteen. Lastly, the court reviewed the sentence to determine if it was manifestly excessive.

After careful consideration, the court found that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial proceedings, as the introduction of the exhibit and the judge’s questioning did not unfairly prejudice the appellant. The court also upheld the jury’s verdicts as being reasonable and supported by the evidence, despite the appellant’s argument regarding the timing of the offences. The sentence was deemed appropriate, and thus, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. Additionally, the court denied the appellant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence, finding it not manifestly excessive.

The court made two orders: firstly, dismissing the appeal against conviction, and secondly, refusing leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. Leave to appeal against sentence is 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.