R v SDQ

[2022] QCA 91

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SDQ [2022] QCA 91

PARTIES:

R
v
SDQ
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 78 of 2021
CA No 130 of 2021
DC No 323 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction: 24 March 2021; Date of Sentence: 25 March 2021 (Jackson QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 13 April 2022
Date of Publication of Reasons: 24 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 April 2022

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Boddice J

ORDERS:

Orders delivered 13 April 2022:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   Set aside the verdict of guilty below.

3.   There be a retrial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUND OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF THE GENERAL CONDUCT OF TRIAL – where a jury found the appellant guilty of two counts of rape, one count of choking and one count of common assault – where the appellant and complainant were in a domestic partnership – where evidence of distressed condition following the rape was given – where the complaint gave evidence of her own distressed condition – whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that evidence of distressed condition was corroborative – whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that certain evidence be treated with caution – where the appeal was allowed

Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40, applied
R v McDougall [1983] 1 Qd R 89, cited
R v Roisseter [1984] 1 Qd R 477, applied
Simic v The Queen (1980) 144 CLR 319; [1980] HCA 25, cited

COUNSEL:

J M Goldie for the appellant/applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McConnell and Saldumbide Lawyers for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. SOFRONOFF P:  A jury found the appellant guilty of two counts of rape, one count of choking and one count of common assault.  He now appeals against those convictions upon the following grounds:

   (a)the learned trial judge erred in directing the jury that there was evidence of distressed condition which, if accepted, was capable of corroborating the complainant’s account;

   (b)the learned trial judge erred in not directing the jury concerning the complainant's motive to lie;

   (c)the learned trial judge erred in directing the jury that exhibit 1, the letter from DVConnect, should be treated with caution; and

   (d)there was a miscarriage of justice caused by the admission of inadmissible and prejudicial evidence at the trial.

2. The complainant met the appellant in March 2018.  They began dating and, within a very short time, the appellant invited the complainant to live with him.  She was about to lose her present accommodation, so she agreed.[1]  It did not take long for tensions to arise in the relationship.  Evidence was given about an incident involving the appellant showing an irrational degree of anger and assaulting the…