R v SDX - [2022] QCA 269

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SDX [2022] QCA 269

PARTIES:

R
v
SDX
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 53 of 2021
DC No 364 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 25 February 2021 (Reid DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 March 2022

JUDGES:

Fraser and Mullins and Bond JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was tried before a jury on five counts of indecent dealing with a child under 12 under care contrary to s 210 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the five counts of indecent dealing were said to have occurred over the course of a single episode – where the trial turned almost exclusively on the complainant’s credibility and reliability – where the appellant was found guilty on two of the counts and not guilty on three of the counts – whether the difference between the verdicts of guilty on counts 1 and 2 was irreconcilable with the verdict of not guilty on count 5 – whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with verdict of not guilty on count 5 such that verdicts of acquittal should be entered – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred

Criminal Code (Qld), s 210

R v Silcock[2022] QCA 234, followed

COUNSEL:

J Robson for the appellant
C W Wallis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Bond JA and with the order proposed by his Honour.
MULLINS JA: I agree with Bond JA.
BOND JA:

Introduction

On 22 February 2021, the appellant was tried by a jury in the District Court on an indictment alleging five counts of indecent dealing with a child under 16, under 12, under care, contrary to s 210(1)(a), (3), (4) of the Criminal Code (Qld).
The offending was alleged to have occurred during the evening of 18 April 2018 when the eight-year-old complainant (KB), who was friends with the appellant’s seven-year-old son (AS), had a sleepover at the appellant’s house.
As particularised by the Crown during the opening of the case, the five counts were as follows:

Count

Offence and particulars

1

Indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care.

Placing the complainant’s hand onto the appellant’s penis over his pants.

2

Indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care.

Touching the complainant’s vaginal area underneath her underwear.

3

Indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care.

Placing the complainant’s hand onto the appellant’s penis over his pants, the same as the first time.

4

Indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care.

Placing the complainant’s hand onto the appellant’s penis over his pants and keeping…

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 SDX

Details

AGLC: R v SDX [2022] QCA 269
Case: [2022] QCA 269
Decision Date: 23 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, SDX, was convicted by a jury of two counts of indecent dealing with a child under 12 under their care, contrary to section 210 of the Criminal Code (Qld), while being acquitted on three other counts of the same offence. The appellant appealed against the convictions on the basis that the verdicts were inconsistent. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The central issue before the court was whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, particularly between the guilty verdicts on counts 1 and 2 and the not guilty verdict on count 5. The court was required to consider whether the differences in the verdicts were irreconcilable and if the inconsistency was so significant that it amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court had to determine if the verdicts could be reconciled in light of the evidence and the jury's role in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury's verdicts were not necessarily inconsistent, as the jury was entitled to accept parts of the complainant's testimony and reject other parts. The court emphasised that the jury's role is to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence and that it was open to the jury to find the appellant guilty on some counts but not on others, even if the incidents were part of a single episode. The court concluded that the verdicts could be reconciled, and there was no miscarriage of justice that would warrant a new trial or an acquittal on the counts where the appellant was found guilty.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions on counts 1 and 2 stood. The court did not order any further action, maintaining the jury's original verdicts.

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.

Count	Offence and particulars
1	Indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care. Placing the complainant’s hand onto the appellant’s penis over his pants.
2	Indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care. Touching the complainant’s vaginal area underneath her underwear.
3	Indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care. Placing the complainant’s hand onto the appellant’s penis over his pants, the same as the first time.
4	Indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care. Placing the complainant’s hand onto the appellant’s penis over his pants and keeping…

CITATION:	R v SDX [2022] QCA 269
PARTIES:	R v SDX (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 53 of 2021 DC No 364 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 25 February 2021 (Reid DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	23 December 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 March 2022
JUDGES:	Fraser and Mullins and Bond JJA
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was tried before a jury on five counts of indecent dealing with a child under 12 under care contrary to s 210 of the Criminal Code (Qld) – where the five counts of indecent dealing were said to have occurred over the course of a single episode – where the trial turned almost exclusively on the complainant’s credibility and reliability – where the appellant was found guilty on two of the counts and not guilty on three of the counts – whether the difference between the verdicts of guilty on counts 1 and 2 was irreconcilable with the verdict of not guilty on count 5 – whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with verdict of not guilty on count 5 such that verdicts of acquittal should be entered – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred Criminal Code (Qld), s 210 R v Silcock[2022] QCA 234, followed
COUNSEL:	J Robson for the appellant C W Wallis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent