R v Sec

Case [2023] QCA 128

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SEC [2023] QCA 128

PARTIES:

R
v
SEC
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 47 of 2023
DC No 62 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maryborough – Date of Conviction: 16 March 2023 (Sheridan DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

16 June 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2023

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Flanagan JA and Livesey AJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –  VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under care – where the appellant relies upon several inconsistences arising from the evidence of the complainant surrounding the core allegations – where the appellant contends that there were so many factual issues and problems with the complaint’s evidence that the jury could not have made a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – whether the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

Criminal Code (Qld), s 210(1)(a), s 210(1)(b), s 668E(1)

Dansie v The Queen (2022) 96 ALJR 728; [2022] HCA 25, cited
Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; [2012] HCA 34, cited
Gardiner v The King [2023] SASCA 58, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, considered
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12, considered
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35, considered
R v Mackay[2018] QCA 313, cited
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, considered

COUNSEL:

B J Power KC, with L C Ferguson, for the appellant
S L Dennis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Robertson O’Gorman for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. MULLINS P:  I agree with Livesey AJA.

  2. FLANAGAN JA:  I agree with Livesey AJA.

  3. LIVESEY AJA: On 16 March 2023 the appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under care, contrary to ss 210(1)(a) (dealing) and 210(1)(b) (procuring) of the Criminal Code (Qld).[1]

    [1]The appellant was later sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, suspended after nine months in custody.

  4. There is only one ground of appeal; that the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence pursuant to s 668E(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld).

  5. The trial was a short one, lasting three days with three witnesses.

  6. The appellant did not give evidence.

  7. The complainant said that the offending occurred on one occasion whilst she and the appellant were alone on his sailing boat whilst it was moored at Maryborough, when the complainant was aged between 14 and 15 years, between October 2006 and June 2007.

  8. The appellant relies upon a number of inconsistencies arising from the evidence of the…

Continue reading R v Sec

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Sec [2023] QCA 128
Case
[2023] QCA 128
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, referred to as Sec, appealed against their conviction by a jury on two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, while the child was under their care. The appeal centred on the contention that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence, given several inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony. The court was tasked with determining whether the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence were so significant that the jury's findings were unreasonable and unsustainable.

The court had to assess whether the discrepancies in the complainant's evidence were such that no reasonable jury could have found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant argued that the numerous factual issues and problems with the complainant's testimony meant that the jury could not have made a finding of guilt. The court considered the role of the jury as the fact-finder and the importance of assessing the complainant's credibility and reliability based on their demeanour and explanations under cross-examination.

The court concluded that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence were factual issues best determined by the jury, who were in the position to assess the credibility and reliability of the complainant based on their testimony and demeanour. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the jury's decision.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

These were factual issues which were matters for determination by the jury as the arbiter of fact in this trial. This was a case where hearing the complainant’s evidence, and seeing the way she gave her evidence and explained suggested inconsistencies under cross-examination, is likely to have performed an important part of the fact-finding undertaken by the jury when evaluating both the credibility and the reliability of the complainant in this case.Conclusion In these circumstances, the appellant has failed to establish that the jury’s verdicts are unreasonable. The appeal should be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.